Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

York Waterworks Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Chester Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow. London Local Authorities (Superannuation) Temporary Provisions Bill [Lords],

Walthamstow Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD) AND TRACKLESS TROLLEY UNDER-TAKINGS.

Return ordered,
of Street and Road Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order, showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of line authorised and the length open for traffic, and number of cars owned at the 31st day of December, 1931, in respect of companies and the end of the financial year 1931–32 in respect of local authorities; the gross receipts, working expenditure, net receipts and appropriations, the transactions in reserve funds, and traffic and operating statistics for the year ended on the foregoing dates, respectively (in continuation of Return to an Order of the House dated the 1st day of April, 1931); also similar particulars relating to Trackless Trolley Undertakings.—[Mr. Pybus.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SITUATION.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he
will give the House the latest information he has as to the political situation in India?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement in regard to the political situation in India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am circulating a statement covering the events of the past week.

Following is the statement:

In connection with National week, which is being celebrated from the 6th to 13th April, attempts are being made to carry out an intensive programme, especially of boycott and picketing, but reports show that the effect so far has been slight. To this new effort may be attributed slightly increased picketing in Bombay and rowdyism in the Cawnpore cloth markets and in Allahabad where a considerable disturbance occurred on the evening of the 8th April, commencing with an attempt by a Congress procession to enter the Civil lines. During the dispersal of the procession and crowd the police were assailed with stones and brickbats for some hours, and suffered several casualties. Two rounds of buckshot were fired, but the resulting casualties are unknown.

The reports from the North-West Frontier Province are good. It is particularly satisfactory that the elections have so far evoked very feeble counter-efforts from the Red Shirts and that wide interest is being taken in them. The tribal position is very satisfactory.

During the week Congress announced their intention of holding the annual session at Delhi and were informed that Government will not grant permission.

The Kashmir situation is much easier.

FRANCHISE COMMITTEE.

Mr. BERNAYS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Franchise Committee will make an Interim Report on its labours; and, if so, when that Report will be published?

Sir S. HOARE: I understand that the Committee is now engaged on a report, and that it is hoped to complete it by the end of April. I am not in a position to indicate a date for publication.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will get the report?

Sir S. HOARE: I should say some time in May.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will their report commit this House definitely to a system of indirect elections?

Sir S. HOARE: None of these reports will commit this House to anything.

CONCESSION PASSENGERS (BRITISH SHIPS).

Mr. GRIMSTON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that in certain cases not only are foreign steamship lines running to India subsidised by their Governments but also Suez Canal dues are paid for them; and, in view of this type of competition and the Government's enjoinder to buy British, will he consider taking steps to restrict concession passages granted to British Government officials in India to British ships?

Sir S. HOARE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) on the 23rd November, to which I have nothing to add.

ADEN (ADMINISTRATION COSTS).

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the whole cost of the administration of Aden is borne by the Indian taxpayer; and whether he will submit proposals that this territory he transferred to the Colonial administration and the administration costs borne by Great Britain?

Sir S. HOARE: The cost of the internal civil administration of Aden Town and Settlement is borne by Indian revenues; the military and political charges fall on Imperial revenues, with a contribution from Indian revenues of one-third of such charges, subject to a maximum of £150,000 a year. As regards the second part of the question, the present is not a suitable time for discussing the future of Aden.

BURMA.

Mr. D. DAVIES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India, if he will state the number of rebels that have been captured in Burma since 1st January, 1932, and the number that it is estimated are still active in opposition to the Government?

Sir S. HOARE: I regret that I have not the information for which the hon. Member asks. It is obviously difficult to estimate the number of rebels still to be accounted for.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will inform the House as to the present situation concerning the disturbances in Burma?

Sir S. HOARE: During the week ended the 9th April Government forces obtained contact with the gangs led by Myat Aung and Tun Myat on several occasions, inflicting casualties and capturing firearms and large quantities of supplies. Three sepoys were slightly wounded in one engagement.

CIVIL SERVICE, BENGAL (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. DAGGAR: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India, for what reasons it is proposed to recruit British members of the Civil Service in Bengal from the British Army; and whether he will see that Indians with the necessary qualifications for the vacant posts are given the preference?

Sir S. HOARE: Proposals for the replacement by officers of the Indian Army or other Government Services of five senior European District officers in Bengal who have been the victims of the terrorist movement are at present under consideration by the Government of India, but no recommendations on the subject from that Government have yet reached me.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Would not this be an appropriate moment to appoint Indians to these vacancies?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot give an opinion until I have seen the recommendations of the Government.

BOMBAY DOCKS (DISPUTE).

Mr. DAGGAR: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India what organisation was responsible for the import of Pathan strike-breakers into the docks at Bombay; how many people have been injured, including police officers, since the Pathans were introduced; and whether any action has been taken to settle the dispute between the Hindu strikers and their employers?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information on this incident beyond what has appeared in the Press.

MEDICAL QUALIFICATIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has approved the Bill introduced into the Legislative Assembly for the establishment of a medical council in India, and for the maintenance of a British-Indian medical register; whether he is assured that a standard of qualification will be made and maintained which will enable such qualification to be recognised by the General Medical Council of the United Kingdom; and whether medical practice both in India and in the United Kingdom and other parts of the British Empire will be freely open to medical practitioners registered by either medical council?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There is, I think, good reason to hope that the standard of the Indian medical qualifications recognised by the Indian Medical Council will be such as will enable them to be recognised also by the General Medical Council here. As regards the last part the present Bill does not deal directly with the right to practise in India.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any assurance from the General Medical Council here that they will approve of the standard set up by this Bill, in which case that would settle the point in question?

Sir S. HOARE: I have had no such assurance.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it possible to get some such assurance before this Bill is passed; otherwise, Indian medical men qualifying in India will be debarred from practising in different parts of the Empire?

Sir S. HOARE: I could not answer that question without further consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has approved the Bill. Had he considered that Measure before he gave it his approval, or is it only a temporary, provisional approval?

MALTA.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has made any representations to the Italian Government regarding the tone of the references to British rule in Malta in a speech made in Malta recently by Signor Giunta, an Under-Secretary of State in the Italian Government?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make representations to the Italian Government regarding the nature of the references in the speech recently made in Malta by Signor Giunta, an Italian Under-Secretary of State, about British policy in Malta and, in particular, the policy of using the Maltese rather than the Italian language in the schools and law courts?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The Italian Government, whose attention was drawn to the alleged statements by Signor Giunta, have assured His Majesty's Government that the rumours attributing to this gentleman declarations of a political nature have no foundation.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: At whose invitation did this Senator from Rome give a lecture on the British Empire?

Mr. EDEN: No one lectured on the British Empire. The address was given to a private gathering at a club of Italians.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who issued the invitation?

Mr. EDEN: I shall require notice of that question.

Captain MACDONALD: Is this not an intolerable interference on the part of a friendly Power with the administration of a British Colony?

Mr. EDEN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read my answer he will see that the Italian Government have denied that the declaration was made and His Majesty's Government, of course, accept that denial.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the Under-Secretary any information as to the people who were present on this occa-
sion and particularly was the gentleman who rejoices in the name of Mifsud present?

Mr. EDEN: Those who were present were, I understand, Italians and not Maltese.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Were there Maltese present?

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: In view of the fact that it is admitted that the lecture was given, will the Under-Secretary draw the attention of the Italian Government to the fact that it was incidents of this sort that caused all the trouble in Malta?

Mr. EDEN: The Italian Government took action without waiting for representations and made a statement. Therefore, there is nothing more to say.

DANUBIAN COUNTRIES (ECONOMIC RESTORATION).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement on British policy in regard to the Four-Power Conference on the Danubian States problem?

Mr. PRICE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is able to make any statement on the proposed economic rapprochement between the Danubian countries and the possibilities of a Customs union?

Mr. HANNON: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the proceedings of the Four-Power Conference on the Danubian scheme; and if and when further meetings are contemplated?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer hon. Members to the final communique issued by the Four-Power Conference in which the participating Governments agreed to address to each other as soon as possible considered statements of their views on the points reserved and on the best mode of further advance. Pending this exchange of views I would prefer to make no statement on this subject.

Mr. HANNON: When does the hon. Gentleman hope that some conclusion will be arrived at and when will he be able to make a further statement to the House?

Mr. EDEN: I cannot say at present.

Major NATHAN: Before the Government undertake any commitments in this matter, will there be an opportunity for discussing that question in this House?

Mr. EDEN: There is no question of commitments at this stage.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will these discussions be renewed at Geneva?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Gentleman will see that each of the Governments is going to make a statement to the other Governments.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no question of financial commitments, does he mean that there is no question of financial commitments and guarantees?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not understand any more than I said.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Gentleman said that we should have no commitments. Does he mean that there will be no financial guarantees?

Mr. EDEN: Really, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must not take more than I said. What I said was that the next stage was that the four considered statements will be exchanged.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the conference has hopelessly broken down?

RUMANIA (JEWISH MINORITY).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the League of Nations as to the treatment of the Jewish minority in Rumania at Jassy; and whether any steps are to be taken to improve matters of this sort in Rumania?

Mr. EDEN: The right hon. Gentleman presumably refers to an incident at Jassy on the 22nd and 23rd March, when a collision occurred between a number of students and the police and military. I am not aware that any complaints have been addressed to the League of Nations in respect of this incident. According to my present information, in spite of the fact that a synagogue appears to have
been wrecked in the course of the disturbances, the conflict in question does not appear to have been due to anti-Semitism, but to other causes.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the amount of claims against insurance companies for damage in the devastated Chinese area of Shanghai, and in order to alleviate the burden upon British insurance companies which are involved, he will make representations to the combatants that they should meet some of the liability entailed by military action?

Mr. EDEN: Both the Chinese and Japanese Governments have already been informed that His Majesty's Government must hold each side responsible for any loss to British life and property that may be caused by their respective armed forces. If any claims against either Government are put forward by interested parties, the question of their support by His Majesty's Government will, of course, receive careful consideration.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it intended to set up an international committee, composed of representatives of those nations who are represented in the Settlement at Shanghai, to consider these matters?

Mr. EDEN: I do not think that at this stage that is the case.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement in regard to the present position of the Sino-Japanese negotiations at Shanghai?

Mr. EDEN: These negotiations are still continuing, but I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) on Tuesday last.

RUSSIA (DEBTS, CLAIMS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reasons given by the representatives of the Soviet Government for declining to
make any proposal with regard to the repayment of bank balances of British subjects in the Russian-English Bank at Petrograd and elsewhere which were appropriated by the Soviet Government?

Mr. EDEN: As indicated in the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend on the 2nd February, no detailed proposals for the settlement of any class of claims were considered during the negotiations last year. No statement was, therefore, made by the Soviet representatives on the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Sir W. DAVISON: Surely, after all these months and years of negotiation, the Soviet Government must have indicated their attitude towards the claims of British citizens whose private property was taken?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend will be aware that the attitude of the Soviet Government was made clear by their decrees of 1917 and 1918.

Sir W. DAVISON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the failure of the Russian Soviet Government to submit any proposals with reference to the money and property of British nationals appropriated without compensation, steps will be taken to terminate the trade agreement and impose a duty on all Russian goods and products entering this country for the establishment of a fund from which compensation can be paid to British creditors?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's anxiety that the claims of British subjects against Russia should be met, but I do not think that his suggestion offers a satisfactory solution of the difficulty.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Secretary invited me to suggest some means by which compensation would be made to British citizens who have had their property taken? What is the objection to the suggestion made in the question, especially as the British market is essential for any success of the Five Years Plan?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is perfectly true, and we are very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making the suggestion, but I do not think that it is
practicable. For one thing, we want revenue from Russian goods for general State purposes.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is any progress being made with the negotiations with the Russian Government which have gone on for so long?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very much obliged if the hon. Member would put that question to the Foreign Office.

BULGARIA.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the geographical position of Bulgaria, and of the fact that its position as an agricultural country has resulted in great impoverishment, he will urge, at the Four-Power Conference, the desirability of including Bulgaria in the Danubian bloc of countries to which it is proposed to bring financial help?

Mr. EDEN: In any further discussions regarding preferential tariffs between the Danubian States the position of Bulgaria will no doubt be borne in mind.

DISARMAMENT.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has considered the disarmament proposals put before the Disarmament Conference on behalf of the organised bodies supporting the League of Nations by Viscount Cecil; and whether the Government has decided to support those proposals and, if not, if he will give the reasons?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will observe that the proposals tabled by the United Kingdom Delegation at Geneva coincide in more than one respect with the suggestions made by Lord Cecil in his speech on the 6th February, last. Any further suggestions made on behalf of these societies will continue to receive, during the discussions at Geneva, the full consideration from His Majesty's Government which they deserve, but decisions as to many issues involved in the work lying ahead of the Disarmament Conference must necessarily depend to a great extent upon the progress made at Geneva,
and I do not think that it would be desirable or proper at this particular moment to make any comprehensive statement as to policy in reply to a question in this House.

Mr. JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman say when it is likely that he will be able to make that statement?

Mr. EDEN: That, of course, must depend on the progress of the conference.

Mr. JONES: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the policy of His Majesty's Government in connection with the proposal to restrict budgetary expenditure on armaments has been in any way modified or abandoned since the statement made on behalf of the British Government by Viscount Cecil to the Preparatory Commission of the Disarmament Conference?

Mr. EDEN: There has been no abandonment of the policy of His Majesty's Government as enunciated by Lord Cecil; but the practical means of giving effect to this form of limitation have been found not to be free of difficulties. These difficulties are engaging the close attention of His Majesty's Government.

IRAQ (AIR OPERATIONS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with what purpose British troops are engaged in military operations in Kurdistan; and whether he will make a statement on their progress?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Robert Hamilton): I have been asked to reply. As regards the reason for the operations in progress, I can add nothing to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies returned last Wednesday to the hon. and gallant Member for the King's Norton Division (Major Thomas), but I wish to make it clear that the operations are being conducted by the Iraqi Army, and that the only British forces engaged are the Royal Air Force machines which are co-operating with the Iraqi Army and Air Force. I understand that satisfactory progress is being made.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are the British Air Force operations being carried on at our cost, or at the cost of the Iraqi Government, as regards any damage to planes, and so on?

Sir R. HAMILTON: Any question as to cost should be put down.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have there been any casualties?

Sir R. HAMILTON: That question, also, had better be put down.

MESSRS. KREUGER AND TOLL (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will request His Majesty's commercial representative in Stockholm to be present at and to report upon all negotiations in Sweden respecting the assets of the Swedish Match Company, so that the interests of the number of unorganised British small investors in Swedish Match securities may be defended as distinct from the American interests in Swedish Match documents and from those of the bond-and share-selling firms who marketed Kreuger and Toll securities in Britain?

Mr. EDEN: The negotiations now taking place in Sweden with regard to the affairs of Messrs. Kreuger and Toll and certain affiliated companies, including the Swedish Match Company, are of a private nature between the various interests concerned, and it would not, therefore, be possible for the Commercial Secretary to His Majesty's Legation at Stockholm to attend them. I understand, however, from the Press that a provisional committee has been formed to represent the interests of British investors in the Kreuger group of companies. Meanwhile, His Majesty's Minister at Stockholm is closely watching the course of events, and is keeping in touch with the representatives of the British interests concerned who are now in Stockholm.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EXPORT CREDITS.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: 27.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can give the premiums
received by the Export Credits Guarantee Department for each of the years 1929, 1930, and 1931, separately, for underwriting, respectively, Russian risks, risks for goods supplied to the British Empire, and risks for goods supplied to other countries; what percentages of the premiums received in each of the three years, separately, and for each geographical group, separately, have been absorbed by payments of claims and by expenses; and what percentage is still necessary to provide for outstanding claims or claims which are likely to arise on unexpired liability?

Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The premiums, losses, etc., under this scheme since its inception in 1926 are shown in the annual volume of Trading Accounts, to which I would refer my hon. Friend. The detailed information for which he asks is not published, and I do not think it would be desirable to give it. I may say, however, that the premium income under this scheme more than covers the losses.

Captain CROOKSHANK: If the income more than covers the losses, what happens to the balance? Does my hon. Friend keep it?

Mr. COLVILLE: My hon. and gallant Friend is, surely, aware that that is not the case.

BRITISH INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION, COPENHAGEN.

Mr. HANNON: 28.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if His Majesty's Government will be directly associated with the organisation of the British Industrial Exhibition at Copenhagen in September next; and if any decision has yet been reached on the measure of support to be given to this project?

Mr. COLVILLE: As my hon. Friend may be aware, the British Exhibition to be held in Copenhagen, commencing on 24th September, comprises an Industrial Exhibition and an Industrial Art Exhibition to be held simultaneously. While, apart from certain small incidental expenses, His Majesty's Government are incurring no financial commitment, both exhibitions have received their full approval and support. The Federation of British Industries are acting as the official agents
in this country for the industrial Exhibition, and are taking steps to ensure that the exhibition receives the support of British commercial and industrial interests, while my Department is actively co-operating in the selection and assembly of suitable exhibits for the Industrial Art Exhibition.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 47.
asked the President of the Board of Trade by how much per cent. the average price of United Kingdom imports from 1st January to 1st April, 1932, was below that during 1913; by how much per cent. the average price of United Kingdom exports from 1st January to 1st April, 1932, was above that during 1913; and, as our average export price was higher in January to April, 1932, than during 1913, notwithstanding the price of imported materials being less in 1932 than in 1913, will lie specify, in the Board of Trade Journal, for the guidance of the export trades, the classes of goods in which this difference has caused: diminution of United Kingdom exports?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The usual calculations relative to the volume and average values of imports and exports during the first quarter of the present year will not be available until later in the month when the particulars will be published in the Board of Trade Journal. These will afford my hon. Friend comparisons of the volumes and average values with the corresponding figures for earlier years.

TEA IMPORTS.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the imports of foreign tea have, comparing 1921 with 1931, increased by 131 per cent., and that British tea increased in the same period by only 9 per cent., he will impose a preferential tariff to safeguard the British tea industry?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I am unable to anticipate the Budget statement.

IMPORT DUTIES (COLLECTION).

Mr. MOREING: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any duties which may be imposed by the forthcoming
Budget will be collected on goods which are at present free of any Customs duty but which are now lying in a bonded warehouse?

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that I can not anticipate the Budget statement.

Mr. MOREING: Is my right hon. Friend aware that consequent upon the uncertainty prevailing unnecessary withdrawals are at present being made of goods which are not dutiable but which may be dutiable in future, and that it is causing dislocation and inconvenience to the authorities who control bonded warehouses, and also causing serious loss as well?

Major ELLIOT: I think that a question on that point has already been put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and answered. I understand that no alteration in the existing practice is contemplated. The existing practice is well understood.

IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. LEWIS: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet received any recommendations from the Import Duties Advisory Committee?

Major ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has just received recommendations which are now under his consideration.

POTATOES.

Mr. PARKINSON: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to remove the embargo against the import of Canadian potatoes, in view of the fact that the shortness of supplies in Great Britain is forcing up prices to the consumer while in Canada there is a surplus which could be sold in this country at prices below those now prevailing?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The embargo on imports of potatoes from countries where the Colorado beetle is prevalent is imposed solely for sanitary reasons, and its enforcement cannot be made to depend upon seasonal fluctuations of supplies.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: Is the Minister satisfied that there are plentiful supplies of potatoes on the British market at the present time?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have-not heard of any undue shortage.

Mr. PARKINSON: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the market price per cwt. of new Spanish potatoes on 31st March, 1931, and on 31st March, 1932; what was the amount of the duty on the later date; and what was the effect on the retail price?

Sir J. GILMOUR: According to the weekly returns furnished by the Ministry's market reporters, the average prices per cwt. of new Spanish potatoes for the week ended 1st April, 1931, for first and second quality, were 21s. 1d. and 19s. 7d. respectively, and for the week ended 30th March, 1932, 25s. 5d. and 23s. 6d. The duty on imported new potatoes during the period 1st to 31st March, 1932, was 9s. 4d. per cwt., but I am unable to estimate the effect of the duty on wholesale or retail prices.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE EXCHANGES.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General the total cost of installing the automatic system in telephone exchanges to date, and the estimated saving to the Post Office as a result of the installation of the automatic exchanges?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The capital cost of accommodation and apparatus for automatic exchanges provided up to 31st March, 1932, is approximately 22¾ million pounds. It is not practicable to estimate the resulting savings with accuracy, but it may be taken that the operating savings will more than cover the additional plant charges.

FACILITIES, STIFFKEY, NORFOLK.

Mr. T. COOK: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General what reply he has returned to the representation from the parish of Stiffkey, Norfolk, for improved postal facilities?

Sir K. WOOD: I am arranging to meet the parish council's request for an additional letter box.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this is not the only complaint of this kind; and is it necessary for other villages to get the same amount of publicity as Stiffkey before they can get their postal facilities?

SAVINGS BANK (LEGAL PROCEEDINGS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of legal actions in which the Post Office Savings Bank has been involved, either as plaintiff or defendant, during each of the last five years?

Sir K. WOOD: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

During the last five years the numbers of prosecutions initiated either by the Postmaster-General or by the Police and others in connection with the Post Office Savings Bank are as follow:


—
Prosecution by
Total.


Postmaster-General.
Police and others.


1927
…
39
22
61


1928
…
35
28
63


1929
…
61
22
83


1930
…
41
23
64


1931
…
72
31
103

In no instance did the Post Office Savings Bank appear as defendant.

CONTRACTS (CABLE WIRE).

Sir GERALD HURST: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is the practice of the Post Office, when inviting tenders for cable wire, to stipulate that it must be of British manufacture; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of imposing some such stipulation?

Sir K. WOOD: The invitations require the tenderer to state the origin of the wire and all current contracts provide that the wire used shall be British. I cannot pledge myself to confine purchases to British wire irrespective of price, but I do not anticipate that any occasion would arise for varying the policy hitherto adopted by the Post Office.

MAIL CONTRACT (ALDEIRNBY).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General if the mail contract for the service of mails to the island of Alderney is an old one; what is the amount of the subsidy paid; and if the service can be improved in the near future?

Sir K. WOOD: The current contract for the Alderney service commenced on 1st October, 1931. The annual payment, which covers also the service to Sark, is £1,300. The service is the best that I think could be arranged in all the circumstances.

BROADCASTING (CHANNEL ISLANDS).

Mr. HANLEY: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will take powers to grant licences for the erection and operation of wireless transmitting stations for broadcasting purposes in the island of Sark and adjacent islands, in view of the fact that the Wireless Telegraphy Act does not apply to those islands?

Sir K. WOOD: The Wireless Telegraphy Acts apply to Sark and the adjacent islands; and it is not necessary to obtain further powers.

GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).

Mr. LEWIS: 37.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will cause a committee of inquiry to be set up to inquire into the subsidy now being paid to the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate, and to advise as to whether in future years any subsidy for opera should be paid; and, if so, to whom it should be paid?

Sir K. WOOD: The agreement between the Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, which provides for the payment of the opera subsidy, and which was laid before Parliament in June, 1931, was for a term of years as therein provided, and an inquiry at the present time, such as my hon. Friend suggests, would not appear to be of any practical advantage.

Mr. LEWIS: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the subsidy is being used, not for the presentation of fresh operas, but
for paying off losses incurred by the syndicate before the subsidy was granted?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

Mr. CLARKE: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General if he has yet received a reply from the British Broadcasting Corporation to his communication on the subject of the suggested curtailment by the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate of the programme of opera performances?

Sir K. WOOD: I understand that a season of four weeks Wagnerian Opera will be given by the Grand Opera Syndicate at Covent Garden from Monday, 9th May, to Friday, 3rd June, inclusive.

COUNTY COURTS.

Mr. CHALMERS: 42.
asked the Attorney-General whether he will recommend that steps be taken to ensure that county court judges should draw up an approximate time-table for the list of cases each day, in order to avoid delay caused through litigants, counsel, solicitors, and witnesses having to be present during the hearing of other cases?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I do not consider the suggestion to be a practicable one. The hon. Member will be aware how often estimates of the probable length of a case are proved to be inaccurate; but however inaccurate the forecast may have been the litigant whose case is before the Court is entitled to have it fully presented. To keep to any time-table would therefore be impossible. Much, however, can be done by Judges and Registrars, if solicitors co-operate by giving timely notice of the settlement of cases and of the approximate length of those to be tried; and I am satisfied that, in most courts, all that is practicable in this direction is being done.

Mr. CHALMERS: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with me that it is better to waste occasionally a little of the learned Judges' time than to waste habitually and daily the time of all these other parties?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think there is a good deal in what the hon. Member says, but to achieve that purpose would involve an enormous increase in the staff of Judges.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SHELLFISH).

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 43.
asked the Minister of Health what steps are taken by authorities other than the Fishmongers' Company to safeguard consumers against the dangers of imported polluted shellfish other than oysters.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): Sanitary authorities have general powers for the inspection and seizure of unwholesome food, and these are put into operation from time to time to prevent the sale of shellfish which appear to be polluted.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the Ministry paying attention to the recommendation of the Committee that all foreign shellfish should be prohibited from importation unless it is cleansed at the port of arrival?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member will be aware that that is only one of the recommendations of the Committee. There are 15 major ones and the report was only published in January.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman of opinion that the passing of the Public Health (Cleansing of Shellfish) Bill will be a step forward in this respect?

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 44.
asked the Minister of Health what steps are taken to require that shellfish imported from the Irish Free State shall be cleansed and sterilised before being landed here so as to prevent their being a possible cause of typhoid if used for human consumption?

Mr. E. BROWN: No special regulations have been made by my Department with regard to imported shellfish, but the Irish Free State Government have made regulations prohibiting the distribution for sale for human consumption of shellfish taken from layings in a defined area in the counties of Louth and Meath, unless the shellfish have been washed and re-laid. My right hon. Friend is not aware that any similar regulations have been made applying to other layings in the Irish Free State.

Mr. HANNON: Has the hon. Gentleman received any complaints as to the quality of shellfish received from the Irish Free State?

Mr. BROWN: No representations have been made at the moment except those to which I have referred.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Fisheries Committee drew attention to this danger from the Irish Free State?

Mr. BROWN: I am aware of that, but my hon. Friend is perhaps also aware that the Fishmongers Company have an arrangement with the Irish Free State under which all shellfish is consigned labelled in such way as to show the source from which the fish have been derived.

SWEEPSTAKES, LOTTERIES, AND BETTING (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Sir W. DAVISON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether it will be provided in the terms of reference to the Royal Commission which the Government purpose to set up to inquire into the law relating to lotteries, etc., that it is desirable that a report on the matter shall be presented within a period not exceeding four months so that the existing anomalies of the law relating to lotteries may be remedied without delay; and whether the Government has definitely decided that, pending the report of the Royal Commission, no facilities are to be given for the further stages of the Lotteries Bill, ordered by the House of Commons to be brought in on the 22nd March?

The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of reference of the Royal Commission are under consideration. It would be impracticable to suggest any time limit within which the Commission are to report but I have no doubt that they will endeavour to expedite their inquiry so far as the complexity of the issues involved will permit. It would be within the discretion of the Commission to submit interim reports should they consider it expedient to do so. Pending the receipt of their report it would be inappropriate I think for legislation to proceed on one aspect of the problem which they are to investigate.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is on the question of lotteries and sweepstakes that the public is primarily interested, and that is bringing the law into disrepute, and will he request the Royal Commission to
report on this matter in the first instance, as it has no relation to street betting and the totalisator whatever?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think, if the hon. Gentleman looks into the details of the problem, he will find that he cannot separate one section of betting from another.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not a fact that the introduction of the Bill by the hon. Gentleman was, in fact, a sort of lottery itself, and that he has lost?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that certain Members' mathematical education is defective, and they think that a large majority in favour of a Bill signifies disapproval of its contents by the House?

IRISH FREE STATE (OATH AND LAND ANNUITIES).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is in a position to state the nature of the reply sent to the Irish Free State Government on the questions of land purchase annuities and other treaty obligations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): With the permission of the House I will answer with this question the Private Notice question which was put to me by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as arranged on last Wednesday. The Government have now examined, and have sent a reply to, the despatch received from the Irish Free State Government last week. In view of the great importance of these communications, the Government have decided that their text should be made immediately available to the House, and hon. Members will find copies ready in the Votes Office when I sit down. I will not, therefore, attempt to summarise the correspondence. I will only say that in their reply to Mr. de Valera the Government have reaffirmed in unmistakable language that they stand absolutely by the Treaty Settlement.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I give the right hon. Gentleman notice that, when we have considered the document which has been issued to-day, it may be that we
shall require to ask for time to debate the matter, and we shall do so through the usual channels if we so desire.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that is very reasonable, and we shall do everything we can to facilitate it.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it the considered view of the Government that this treaty, having once been entered into between the two nations, is incapable of review and must stand for all time?

Mr. THOMAS: If the hon. Member will see the White Paper which is now available, he will see the Government answer to that.

Mr. MAXTON: I am well aware that the White Paper will be there. I understood the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would make a statement to-day, and I thought it would be made in the ordinary way and that we should have an opportunity of question and answer. By the method the right hon. Gentleman is taking the House is being denied—

Mr. SPEAKER: rose
—

Mr. MAXTON: I am putting it to you, Sir, as a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member did not say so.

Mr. MAXTON: I hoped that I would have achieved my purpose by the ordinary method of question and answer across the Floor. I put it to you, Sir, that it is the practice of the House when the Minister has promised to make a statement to the House, that that statement is made in full at the end of Question Time and that there is certainly opportunity for the House, by extended question and answer, to get to know the mind of the Government on the question. I ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement which refers to a White Paper which we cannot see until after Question Time and postpones the possibilities of the House discussing this question until some date not yet fixed?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no practice of the House in this connection. What is done is entirely dependent upon the particular question under discussion and the answer that the right hon. Gentleman has given. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in what he has said.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the declaration which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, that there will be no departure from the Treaty and that there will be no revision of the Treaty, part of the policy of the Government in relation to all treaties or only in relation to the Irish Treaty?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter hardly arises out of the question.

ROYAL NAVY (AIRCRAFT).

Mr. DAGGAR: 51.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that His Majesty's Ship "Shropshire" has been equipped with an aeroplane, it is proposed to put aircraft on the other ships of the first cruiser squadron?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY: (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Yes, Sir.

UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS).

Mr. TINKER: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour if it is on his instructions that applicants for transitional payments who appear before the public assistance committees are not allowed by the committees to take a friend with them to help them with their case?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): No, Sir. This is a matter within the discretion of local authorities.

Mr. TINKER: In view of the dissatisfaction which has been caused, will the Department review the matter and see whether it will be possible to allow friends to attend with applicants?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As I have said, it is a matter entirely for the local authorities. I am told that it is the practice that some local authorities allow such representatives and others do not. It is really a matter for them; I cannot interfere.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that very often those who make use of the opportunity exclaim afterwards, "Save me from my friends"?

Mr. HORNBY: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that owing to the action of courts of referees in disqualifying persons in the transitional
class from insurance benefit many persons have had to seek public assistance, and that this number is increasing, causing a burden on the rates of many cities and towns; and whether he is prepared to promote legislation making poverty arising from unemployment a national charge?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. I have no evidence that what my hon. Friend suggests is taking place. The courts of referees have to decide, in cases of doubt and subject to appeal to the umpire, whether an applicant is normally in an insured trade; this condition has remained unchanged since transitional benefit was first instituted in 1928.

Mr. HORNBY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Liverpool 3,500 persons have had to seek public assistance, that this number is being rapidly augmented, and that the charge—

Mr. SPEAKER: Those details can be sent to the Minister.

WILD FLOWERS (SALE).

Mr. LEWIS: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider, with a view to preserving the beauty of the countryside, introducing at some convenient opportunity legislation to make it an offence punishable by fine to sell wild flowers without the permission of the occupier of the land from which the flowers were taken?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): I doubt if Parliament would be prepared to go so far as to approve making it a penal offence for persons, in many cases children, to gather wild flowers and offer them for sale. The proposal would also entail great difficulties in connection with the question of proof whether the owner's permission had or had not been given. Three years ago a new form of by-law was drawn up at a conference between the Home Office and representatives of county councils and other interested bodies to stop the uprooting of wild plants and this by-law is now in operation in 32 counties.

SUGAR INDUSTRY.

Mr. PURBRICK: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he expect to receive the report of the
departmental committee investigating the economics of the sugar-beet industry; and whether the report will be made public?

Major ELLIOT: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him on the 29th February, to which I cannot add anything.

Mr. GROVES: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture by what amount per cwt. the present subsidy and duty abatement for beet-sugar exceeds the amount originally contemplated for the third and present period of the subsidy scheme?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The rate of subsidy now payable for beet-sugar is that originally contemplated under the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925, for the present subsidy period. The effective duty preference received by home-grown white sugar was increased under the Finance Act, 1928, and now exceeds by 1s. 6⅔d. per cwt. the preference existing when the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925, was passed.

Major McLEAN: Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent the price of raw sugar has fallen during the same period?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The price of raw sugar has, I believe, fallen from 20s. a cwt. to 4s. 3d. a cwt. in the same period.

Mr. GROVES: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any figures to show what is the effective assistance per cwt. given to the production of sugar from beet or cane in the United Kingdom, United States of America, France, British West Indies, Cuba and Java, respectively?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In Great Britain the production of white sugar is given effective assistance of 10s. 9d. per cwt. and in the United States of America and France protection is afforded equivalent to 12s. and 13s. 11d. per cwt. respectively, at par rates of exchange. Production in the British West Indies is assisted by an effective duty preference of 3s. 6d. per cwt. on white sugar consigned to the United Kingdom, while Cuban sugar receives in the United States of America a duty preference equivalent to 2s. 5d. per cwt. of refined sugar. So far as I am aware, the production of sugar in Java is not assisted.

RAIL AND ROAD TRANSPORT (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to have published the whole of the proceedings and findings of the Railway and Road Committee?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend does not suppose that the conference will keep any detailed record of their proceedings, nor does he think it desirable that they should be fettered by any undertaking that these proceedings will be made public. It is, however, his present intention to publish any findings that the conference may submit to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING, GLASGOW.

Mr. MAXTON: 48.
(for Mr. KIRKWOOD) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Department of Health for Scotland has had under consideration for some weeks a request by the Clydebank Town Council for permission to proceed with a scheme for the erection of over 400 houses, which are needed to relieve overcrowding and to meet the needs of an expanding population; and will he state why sanction has been withheld, as the scheme is not only needed for housing purposes but is a means of providing employment for workers in the district?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The scheme in question was for the erection of 470 houses, and looking to the existing circumstances of the burgh, the Department of Health felt that it would be inexpedient for the town council to proceed at the present time with a scheme of such magnitude, the estimated cost of which is £150,000, exclusive of the cost of land, roads, etc. The Department, however, realising the need for dealing immediately with uninhabitable houses, have intimated their willingness to consider sympathetically proposals to proceed with the erection of 74 new houses which the town council estimate are required to accommodate families who will be displaced from condemned houses and who
cannot be accommodated otherwise. As regards the abatement of overcrowding, the Department have intimated that the most obvious course in the circumstances is for the town council to use for that purpose the houses which are being erected under a previous scheme, the number still uncompleted at 31st March being 250. The Department have also intimated that if the measures which they have suggested for the abatement of overcrowding are found to be insufficient, they will be prepared to consider sympathetically any application, supported by the necessary information, which the town council may put forward for the erection of additional houses to meet the insufficiency.

DUKE STREET PRISON, GLASGOW.

Mr. MAXTON: 49.
(for Mr. KIRK-WOOD) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider the advisability of consulting with the Glasgow Corporation regarding the demolition of Duke Street Prison, Glasgow, and the conversion of the site into an open space, which would provide a valuable amenity in a congested area?

Mr. SKELTON: While it is contemplated that the closing of Duke Street Prison may be possible at some future date, no decision has been taken on this point, and no decision can be taken for some time to come. There can, therefore, be no question of considering the utilisation of the site at the present time.

Mr. MAXTON: Why need there be any delay in deciding upon the demolition of this prison, if you have decided to put it out of action?

Mr. SKELTON: Accommodation must be found for those prisoners at present in Duke Street prison. Accommodation has been found, I think, for practically all the men, but the question of the transfer of the women prisoners has not yet been decided.

Mr. MAXTON: Let them out.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DEBTS.

Mr. PRICE: 60.
(for Mr. THORNE) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total amount of war debts owing to Great Britain by European countries at the conclusion of the Great
War; the number of countries which had part of their debts cancelled, and the percentage of cancellation for each country, and the total amount of debts cancelled; whether the Treasury is still paying interest on the amount of the debts cancelled and if he will state the total amount of interest paid on such debts up to the end of March of the current year?

Major ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) on the 18th February, and to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Knight) on the 4th and the 10th March, of which I am sending him copies.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDGAR WALLACE (AMERICAN WREATH).

Mr. PRICE: 61.
(for Mr. THORNE) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any Information in connection with the levying of duty on the wreath sent to be placed on the coffin of Mr. Edgar Wallace from New York by American sympathisers; and if he will state the amount of the duty levied?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am informed that no duty was levied on the wreath referred to by the hon. Member.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Prime Minister say how far he intends to go with business to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to get the first two Orders, and if it were possible to make some advance with the Third Order, Chancel Repairs Bill (Lords), Committee, we should like it, but we shall not sit late.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand that it is intended to take the Seventh Order—Children and Young Persons (Money) (No. 2) Resolution, Report.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is formal.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Short title), 2 (Army Act and Air Force Act to be in force for specified times), 3 (Prices in respect of billeting), 4 (Amendment of Army Act, ss. 114, 190), and 5 (Amendment of Army Act, s. 115), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 133.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. GEORGE HALL: My object is to ask the Minister to give us some information additional to that which is contained in the notice which has been circulated with the Bill as to the reason for this new Clause. It does seem strange, with all the experience we have had of operations abroad, that it is left for the hon. Member, in 1932, to ask for these additional powers. In the note which has been circulated with the Bill the hon. Member states that:
Under Section 132 of the Army Act, it is in times of peace the function of the Secretary of State (or, in India, of the Governor-General) to set apart buildings to he used as military prisons or detention barracks, and to make rules with respect to them.
I think that these buildings would in almost every case be the property of the State and for the purpose of dealing with delinquents during peace times or in the event of war the buildings which are still State property could be so extended that they would be sufficient to accommodate any persons who had been sentenced for detention or to be put into military prisons. I understand that these additional powers are not asked for under Section 132 but only under Section 133, which, if I understand aright, is simply for the purpose of dealing with difficulties which might arise in operations abroad, because those powers are given to the Commander-in-Chief of the forces abroad in the event of any difficulties arising. I take it that as that is so it is more than likely, as there will be no
buildings under the control of the State available, that civil buildings will have to be taken over for this purpose.
In that case, we are of the opinion that this accommodation should be given up as soon as possible after hostilities cease, rather than that they should be retained far an indefinite period. I would ask the hon. Member if he can give some guarantee that the retention of these buildings would not be protracted, as I understand took place in connection with the Great War, which was officially declared to be over in 1921 or 1922. It would mean that if the commanding officer of troops had to take over buildings for the purpose in question and if he so desired he could retain those buildings for this particular purpose until the hostilities in which he and his troops had been engaged were officially declared over, which might be some months or years after actual hostilities had ceased. Before the powers that are asked for in this Clause are given and added to the Army Act we ought to have some guarantee that buildings which are taken over from civil authorities or from other owners should be released to the owners or the civil authorities as soon as, or immediately after, hostilities have ceased. I am asking why this Clause is required. Has there been any great difficulty with regard to the retention of buildings of this kind in the past, or is it anticipated that there will be greater difficulty in the future? Perhaps the Financial Secretary will reply to the questions I have put.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The hon. Member has asked why the alteration in this Clause has been suggested. It is one of the advantages, perhaps a rather doubtful advantage, of having an annual Army Act, which has to be passed through this House every year that every year it can be subjected to the careful scrutiny of lawyers and those whose business it is to look out for possible difficulties and dangers, and such is their ingenuity, assiduity and diligence that they usually find something which is capable of improvement. The reason why this Clause has been improved this year is not because of any failure in the past owing to the insufficiency of the Clause but because the legal mind has detected the possibility of some inconvenience arising in the future.
Under the Clause as it was the officer commanding troops on active service had the power to take over certain buildings for use as detention barracks, but these powers ceased when the War ceased. It is obvious that very often a war ceases some time before you can recall the troops on active service, and I am quite sure that the hon. Member will agree that it is quite impossible the moment hostilities cease to allow detention barracks to return into the care of their civil owners and allow all those who are detained to be set free or compel the officer commanding to find other quarters suitable for use. Therefore, we have slightly altered the Clause in order to make sure that no inconvenience, which has so far never arisen, shall arise and that as long as troops are on active service these powers, vested in the commanding officer far the purpose of hostilities and during war, shall continue. That is the sole purpose of this alteration. I hope the explanation will be satisfactory to the hon. Member and that he will not press his Amendment.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I still have some difficulty in understanding the necessity for introducing this alteration in the law. I thank the Financial Secretary for the explanation he has given. He started by saying that the advantage of this yearly review is that we are able to amend where we deem it to be necessary. The late War finished in l9l8, and we have had an annual review since then, that is 14 times, and apparently it is only now that the acute legal mind has discovered this flaw in the Act. It is rather curious that after the greatest conflict the world has ever known, when no difficulty arose, that because of some hypothetical difficulty which has arisen in the mind of some legal pundit we are to be invited to alter the law in this way. The Financial Secretary did not reply to the other point put by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). The words in the Clause are:
So long as the forces in the country in question are on active service.
To the lay mind active service ceases on the day when the last shot is fired. What, in fact, does "active service" mean? Legally, I believe, it means on the day when peace is signed. If the final declaration of peace and not the
declaration of an armistice is the end of active service, then, clearly, the commanding officer will have a fairly long time between the actual declaration of the armistice and the final declaration of peace in which to exercise these powers, without the addition of these words. I do not think the Financial Secretary has met that point. I should like to know what precisely is the legal definition of the end of active service, since it has been necessary to put these words in the Act.

Mr. COOPER: Speaking without having had an opportunity of consulting any legal authority I should imagine that so long as troops are abroad on foreign territory they were on active service. I cannot imagine troops being maintained abroad except on active service. The hon. Member will see from the analogy he drew from the late War, when peace was signed many months after the Armistice, that if these powers were not taken considerable inconvenience will arise in the event of the commanding officer not being able to maintain detention barracks which are in existence. I should say that as long as troops are maintained abroad in foreign countries they are on active service. The only object of the Clause is to make sure that no inconvenience will arise in the future as to the legal position.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 7.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 174A.)

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, after the word "amusements," to insert the words:
promoted or organised for presentation specifically at such camp, station, or naval establishment.
This is an entirely friendly Amendment designed to obtain from the hon. Member some indication of what is to be the practice of the Services with regard to entertainments contemplated under this new Clause. The proposal is to add cinematographic entertainments to the list of public entertainments. This is the position. Entertainments promoted by the Services are lifted from the operation of the Statutes regulating entertainments, and the entertainment industry, which seems to be entering upon very dubious days, is rather concerned at the exten-
sion contemplated by the amendment of this Clause. The position is that under the operation of this Clause any service entertainments can be promoted without having to comply with the statutory regulations, whereas professional entertainers contemplating the same kind of entertainments are subject to restrictions and regulations. On the face of it that seems rather unfair, and those connected with the entertainment industry are concerned at the prospect of their activities being further curtailed under the operation of this proposed change in the Act.
No one in this Committee desires to restrict the entertainments which are provided for men of the Services and their friends, and this matter is raised simply for the purpose of ascertaining how the Services propose to carry out this increased power, having in view the safeguarding, as far as possible, of the legitimate interests of professional entertainers. The Amendment is designed to restrict the entertainments specifically to the particular station or establishment at which it is taking place, that is to say, for the benefit and the amusement of the men in the Services and their friends. I do not propose to press the Amendment unless the Financial Secretary to the War Office is unable to give me some sort of generous undertaking that in operating this enlarged power the Services will pay some attention to the interests of the entertainment industry. There is no necessary conflict between professional entertainers and the Services. They enlist each other's assistance on these occasions. But in the interests of a hardly pressed class, the professional entertaining class, I ask the Financial Secretary to indicate some sympathetic attitude, so that the Committee can be satisfied that the reasonable opportunities of professional entertainers earning a livelihood will be safeguarded.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I would thank the hon. and learned Member for the very friendly way in which he has moved this Amendment, and I hope that my short reply will satisfy his mind on the point that he has raised. I wish particularly to emphasise the fact that the alteration which is proposed of the Act, and which chiefly concerns the Royal Air Force, does not entail any alteration at all of the existing practice. The sole
purpose of Clause 7 is to remove doubts, to make it, perfectly clear that the practice habitually followed under Section 174A of the Air Force Act, is within the letter, as it is undoubtedly within the spirit and intention, of the law. In particular we desire to make it clear that the Service entertainments, to which Section 174A applies, are not affected by the Sunday Observance Act or the formal procedure of the Act relating to cinemas. The main purpose is to further the welfare of the men in the Services. They are often stationed in out of the way places, where no form of recreation or amusement exists, and in such cases it is found essential to provide proper entertainment, on Sundays as well as weekdays. Obviously the rules that govern these entertainments should be the same throughout the Services, and not vary between one district and another.
There are very few Service cinemas, only six or seven in the Air Force and none in the Army, which are under the immediate control of the Services. Of these only four are open on Sundays, and the entertainments are given within the barrack premises. The quality of the entertainment given and the precautions taken for safety are certainly no lower than those provided in the civil community. I would go further and say that the standard is very much higher than in many cases of civil entertainments. It is only natural that that should be so. Take the case of the cinema at Halton. There the authorities have to provide for the entertainment and safety of 2,000 young lads. There is no unfair competition with civil entertainments in any way. These Service entertainments are open primarily to the personnel of the units. Hon. Members would be the first to realise that it is only natural that the troops should be allowed to bring their friends with them. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. There is nothing new in this Clause except that it is designed to remove any doubts that remain at the moment. The practice followed in this matter is dictated solely by the welfare of the forces. No change of practice is contemplated.

Mr. GROVES: Does the Clause deal only with cinemas, or does it include other entertainments, such as band performances?

Sir P. SASSOON: If the hon. Member will look at Sub-section (2) of the Clause, he will see a definition of the expression "public entertainment or amusement.'

Mr. KNIGHT: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his assurances, and, in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided such building conforms to any by-laws of the local authority with respect to the provision of exits and other safeguards applicable to places of entertainment.
4.0 p.m.
In regard to places of entertainment in the Army one can see that certain regulations which in civil life are introduced, cannot possibly come into operation in the Services, and that a certain latitude must be allowed. None the less I think it is necessary that this Amendment should be inserted in the Bill. Such a proviso ought to be inserted from the point of view of safety. One understands that in regard to ships it is not possible to provide exits, but wherever it is possible, safeguards ought to be provided.

Sir P. SASSOON: I have already, in part, covered this Amendment by what I said in reply to the previous Amendment. In such a matter it is not feasible that the Crown should be made subject to the varying regulations and the control and inspection of local authorities, which vary from one district to another. As I said on the previous Amendment, it is very important that the same rules governing and applying to a particular case should apply all through the service similarly. At the same time, I would like to give the assurance that in these service cinemas and entertainment rooms strict fire precautions are taken everywhere and ample provision is made for exits. In many of these units where there is a permanent fire picket the precautions against fire are probably more efficient than in the case of many civil cinemas where the fire station or fire brigade is a long distance removed.
The service standards in these matters are, therefore, definitely higher than in the case of civil life, and as regards other safeguards and equipment the safety arrangements required by the Home
Office in civil cinemas are most strictly complied with. I may add without challenge that there has been so far not a single case of fire, not even the smallest, in any of these Royal Air Force cinemas. The station commander is responsible for the conduct of the Air Force cinema a lid for taking all precautions, and there is a special officer appointed by the station commander or station headquarters for this purpose. I can assure the hon. Member that every possible precaution is taken against fire and for the provision of exits and all the other necessities for safety.

Mr. LOGAN: After the very full explanation, we do not intend to press the Amendment, which I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 8 (Attaching of officers and soldiers to Dominion forces) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 9.—(Amendments with respect to Dominions and Northern Ireland, and drafting and other minor amendments.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain CROOKSHANK: There is a small drafting point which I wish to raise. I think there is a mistake here. The Clause says:
The Amendments specified in the second column of the Second Schedule to this Act … shall be made in or, as the case may be, inserted after the Sections of the Army Act specified in the first column of the said Schedule.
In the Second Schedule we find an enormous number of Amendments, and, quite rightly, the column gives the Section where they should be inserted, but at the bottom of page 24 there are a few Amendments referred to, which are to apply "Throughout the Act." I am not sure that that could be done if this Clause stands as it is. The Clause only gives power to have the Amendments specified in the Second Schedule inserted in the relevant places. I do not think that it gives power to the whole variety of Amendments throughout the Act, and,
incidentally, it seems to me a very slipshod way to introduce Amendments in the Bill to say that "throughout the Act" certain words are to be substituted for other words. To make the Schedule fit the Clause, it seems to me that instead of these words it should say every Section where these words have to be inserted. As it is obviously not the intention to do that, I would ask the Under-Secretary whether he is satisfied that the words of this Clause will really do what is intended. I do not think that they will.

Mr. COOPER: We have gone very closely into this point, and my advisers are satisfied that these words do carry out the intention of the Act. I do not know why my hon. and gallant Friend should object to the words "Throughout the Act." I do not think that you can have any shorter, more concise or plainer words to explain that these words apply to any Section of the Act. If he can suggest any better way of conveying that intention in shorter and clearer words, we shall no doubt be glad to consider the possibility of inserting them instead, but, as far as I am aware, or can imagine, there are no better words than "Throughout the Act."

Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not want to press the point, and I agree that the words "Throughout the Act" are the clearest possible three words to be employed, but I do not think that that is the way in which you can make Amendments, according to the Clause. It seems to me that the only way to bring these words into the ambit of Clause 9 would be to put a whole string of Sections of the Act in which these words are to be inserted. If, however, the hon. Gentleman's legal advisers consider it all right, I will not fight them over it, but it does not seem to do what the Clause says.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 10 (Application to Air Force Act), 11 (Provisions as to attached personnel), 12 (Amendment of Army Act, s. 183), 13 (Provisions as to attached personnel) and 14 (Minor and consequential amendments of Air Force Act) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 15.—(Construction and printing of amendments to Army and Air Force Acts.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not want to raise the same point, but the definition in the Memorandum is:
This Clause is mere consolidation.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that again it seems to be very slipshod, whether consolidation or not—I have not had time to consider it while sitting here —that we in this House should put in a Clause of this kind, because I should have thought that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament the Amendments ipso facto are in force without our having to say so in the Clause. Apart from that, I should have thought that the power which is given to the Clerk of the Parliaments —of all people—to re-number and rearrange and do, in fact, all the editing, is a job which ought to be done by this House. I am sorry that we should be putting any labour on the Clerk of the Parliaments, who has other work to do, instead of doing it ourselves, but as our not doing it ourselves may help to get the Bill through, perhaps we may congratulate ourselves on the kindness of the War Office.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 76 of Army Act.)

The following proviso shall be added at the end of Section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment):—
Provided also that where a boy is enlisted before attaining the age of eighteen he shall be discharged upon a request to this effect being made by a parent or guardian.—[Mr. G. Hall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. G. HALL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The proposed new Clause may be regarded as an annual Clause moved from this side of the Committee, and on this occasion I feel sure that there are. very few hon. Members who would not feel a great relief if it were made possible, either by the terms of this proposed new Clause, or some other means, to prevent
boys being recruited into the Army as men under the age of 18. It would relieve some Members of the very distressing cases which are brought to their notice from time to time. The Clause has been asked for on many occasions, as I have pointed out, and it has been refused, I have no doubt, for the reason that recruits were not presenting themselves in numbers sufficient to meet the requirements. This difficulty has now been removed, and I have no doubt that the Army Council is in a very happy position, as far as new recruits are concerned, for at no time since 1922 have there been so many recruits accepted as there were during the last year. The hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill, in introducing the Army Estimates this year, said:
Those who have been Members of this House for any length of time have seen Minister after Minister standing at this Box regretting that recruiting has not been satisfactory, and hon. Members have shown their ingenuity by suggesting year after year new ways in which recruiting might be encouraged. This year, for the first time for many years, we have been obliged to fix a limit to the numbers that we were willing to receive. We have been compelled also to raise the standard of height and weight of those who have been selected from among the men who have come up to other conditions. Even so, we have got all the men that we require. We have got a sufficient number of men of a higher quality than have been recruited in previous years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1932; col. 1655, Vol. 262.]
If ever there was a justification for moving the new Clause, the justification is this year, and I have no doubt that there is scarcely a Member on any side of the House who is not in favour of restricting the recruiting into the Army fur men to those over 18 years of age. The hon. Member and the Under-Secretary of State for Air, speaking on the first two Amendments on the Order Paper, said that the Clauses were introduced to remove doubt. We would like a doubt also removed regarding the age of enlistment into the Army, for I have not seen anything where there is so much doubt as to what is the proper age of recruitment and as to instructions given to the recruiting officers for men to be recruited into the Army. Under the Army Regulations, it is said that a boy may not be enlisted into the Army as such without the written consent of his parents or guardians. I take it that that would be if the boy enlisted as a boy, but, as
regards recruits enlisting as men by means of mis-statement of age, a free discharge is allowed if applied for before the recruit reaches the age of 17, or when there are special compassionate grounds, if the recruit is between 17 and 18. Under the Regulations it is customary to hold the recruit of between 17 and 18 to his contract, unless there are exceptional compassionate grounds. We now ask that what is given to boys under the age of 17 should be extended to boys under the age of 18.
I will not go so far as to say that these boys are enlisted under false pretences. I know that questions are put to them as to their age, but I think the War Office is really condoning the enlistment of these boys under 18. I know no other Government Department which allows so much discretion in the hands of officials administering any Act, or admitting any persons into any service, as that which is given by the War Office to the recruiting agents. In some districts if a child of the age of five is presented at an elementary school a birth certificate is required, and a birth certificate is required in order that a child may sit for the examination for a secondary school scholarship. In connection with pensions of any kind, a birth certificate is demanded, but the instructions which the War Office give to the recruiting agents are such that there is no need for the presentation of the birth certificate. If the recruit is well developed, of good size, good weight and apparently of a reasonable age, the agent is satisfied and the recruit can then be admitted into the Army as a man. The time has come when more definite instructions should be given to the recruiting agents. If the War Office would make the presentation of a birth certificate or the consent of a parent or guardian the test, that would meet our point. In these days appearance and physical development are not a satisfactory test.
With the extension of the school age and the physical drill given in our schools, it is now possible for boys of 14 or 15 to be of the height, weight and in some cases the appearance of boys of 18 or 19. I have a boy, myself, of 13 who, as far as height is concerned, could enlist in the Army and I hope that in the course of a short time he will have the width as well.
Most hon. Members are acquainted with the cause of the large number of enlistments of these boys. Sometimes they are due to economic pressure. In a number of cases they are caused by trivial disagreements at home. Perhaps a parent, quite rightly, reprimands a boy and the boy taking it badly, runs away on the impulse of the moment and joins the Army. I have known too, of cases of groups of boys of 16 and 17 joining the Army. One of these boys may have suggested it quite seriously; others have taken up the suggestion more or less as a joke, and all have rushed away and joined the Army. The first intimation which the parent of such a boy would get of his son's action would be the receipt of instructions directing the boy to the depot of the regiment which he had joined.
These cases cause no end of sorrow and anxiety to the parents. These boys of 16 and 17 are suddenly taken away from home influence and placed in the maelstrom of garrison life. We know the sorrow caused in many homes as a result. In a few days time the recruit himself begins to realise what he has done, and many of these lads would do anything and everything possible to get out of the Army when that realisation comes upon them. If a boy is under 17, he can be released under the regulations; if he is over 17 and under 18, he can only be released on compassionate grounds. If they are retained, these boys become disgruntled and are of little use to themselves or the Army authorities while causing anxiety and sorrow to their parents. I think most hon. Members will agree that boys under 18 ought not to be allowed to enlist without the consent of parents or guardians. At that age a boy is too young to undertake military duties and as we are informed that there is an ample number of recruits over 18 years of age and of a high standard at present offering themselves, the War Office ought to meet us in this matter.
I do not know what it actually costs to enlist these recruits, but we know that a penalty of £20 is asked for if some of these recruits are released—unless it is upon compassionate grounds or unless they have served for less than three months. But I suppose that the actual cost of training and equipment would be
much more. The War Office, therefore, must suffer some loss as a result of recruiting these boys. A fairly large number of them are discharged for misstatement of age. In 1923–24, 793 boys were discharged for mis-statement of age. In 1924–25, 563; in 1928–29, 573; in 1929–30, 575. All those boys were discharged, I take it, upon presenting evidence as to their actual ages. Thus we have the expense in the case of those boys of recruiting them, equipping them, training them and paying their rail fares from their homes or their work. All this could be obviated if definite instructions were given to the recruiting agents on the lines I have indicated. Quite apart from the cost and inconvenience involved, the sorrow caused to the parents is such that the War Office at a time like this when they are getting a sufficiency of recruits of the proper age when in some regiments recruiting has been restricted, ought to agree to accept the proposal contained in the New Clause.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to support the New Clause. I think it is time that this matter was considered. Most, hon. Members receive letters from parents trying to secure the release of boys who have enlisted, and one wonders why the Army authorities have not done something definite to deal with this matter. I know that in the past there have been times when men could not be got for the Army and when the Army authorities were willing to take almost anybody, and even to go in for something approaching the methods of the press gang. But now we learn that we are getting as many recruits for the Army as we want, all of a fair standard. That being so, the time has come to lay down a definite rule about the age. I would go further than the proposed New Clause and suggest that no one ought to be taken into the Army without a birth certificate as definite proof of age, so that there would be no question afterwards of a mistake having been made. The cost involved must be fairly great and it is worth the consideration of the War Office whether it would not be an advantage, from all points of view, to have a definite rule of the kind which I suggest. If that were done, Members of Parliament who at present receive these requests from parents would be in a position to tell the parent, "Your boy before entering the
Army had to produce his birth certificate and he knew what he was doing." As things stand we are bound to feel a lot of sympathy with the parents in these cases. When a boy under age has joined the Army we cannot help feeling that he has been taken advantage of, to some extent, and that he ought to be allowed to return to his home. The Financial Secretary knows that we are most persistent in these cases and he has to do all he can to ward us off in connection with them. It would relieve him of a lot of responsibility if there was a definite rule about the production of a birth certificate, and I hope, therefore, that he will consider the point of view which we are putting forward.

4.30 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: With the object of this proposed New Clause, I think most of the Committee are in agreement, but I rather doubt whether in this form it will achieve its purpose. During a considerable period I had to deal with cases of this character. I have had to write on behalf of distressed parents asking for the release of youths who had joined the Army under age. I think the Financial Secretary will agree with me that, almost invariably, the War Office is ready on reasonable grounds to release such youths on the request of the parents. The trouble is very different. The real trouble is to discourage the over-zealous recruiting officer from accepting youths who are obviously not of the proper age. We all know the glamour which His Majesty's uniform has for a schoolboy and 17 is a very susceptible age. The boy of 17 often wants to show his independence of his home and his parents. He seeks adventure and in a great many cases he goes to the recruiting officer. The recruiting officer, anxious to get as big a bunch as he can, judges solely by manner and appearance as to the boy's age. I understand the view of the War Office is that when a youth has been six months in the Army the State has had to undergo considerable expense in training, feeding, housing and clothing that youth. It is in the interest, surely, of the War Office and the State to prevent recruiting officers taking boys under age who may be claimed by parents shortly afterwards as being too young to be in the Army. But it seems to me that the method proposed in the new Clause leaves
us very much where we are now. It may be that in war-time or in particular cases the War Office takes a different attitude, but I think that in peace-time there are very few cases in which the War Office refuses to let a lad go when his parents show good cause why he should be exempt. It seems to me that the right course to take is for the War Office, in its own interests, and the Army authorities who are responsible for the proper expenditure of the limited budget at their disposal, to instruct the recruiting officers to take more care. The new Clause proposes that the War Office should let off a boy at the request of a parent or guardian, but the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) suggested a better alternative, namely, that the birth certificate should be produced. The trouble there—and I am talking with some knowledge of working-class homes—is that it is not always easy to produce birth certificates; but that is a practical proposal and one that would be far better in the interests of the Army and of the finances of the country than the proposal in the new Clause.
I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Clause—and I do not think it would take us very much further in any case—the War Office, during the next few months, should inquire into the whole problem of recruiting youths under 18. This is the very time to do it, when there is no shortage of recruits and when we are likely to reach our establishment in numbers; and, surely, we want to get the best value for our money. The Minister might very well have either an inquiry inside the War Office or a Departmental Committee. One does not like to suggest committees in these times, but the matter is worthy of an inquiry as to whether we could not find out some way of preventing these 500 or 600 lads who are released from the Army every year after about three months' training and after costing a considerable sum of money, which we can ill spare.

Sir GERALD HURST: I hope the Minister will not make the concession asked for in this Clause. I think the experience of most hon. Members will be that the present practice, by which, if there are genuine compassionate grounds, these young soldiers are released, is adequate to meeting the difficulty. I do not
think it is right to stress the alleged sorrow in the working class home which is said to arise when boys of 17 happen to enlist. In very many cases the grievance of the parent who finds that his boy has joined the Army is altogether ill-founded. Like other hon. Members, I have in my many years' experience as a Member of Parliament had many applications from constituents asking me to help them get their boys released from the Army, but my practice, unless they show really compassionate grounds, is not to try to get the boy released, but to try to persuade the parents that their son, in joining the Army, has done a far, far better thing than he has ever done before.
There are many cases where boys are at a loose end, and it is a very good thing that the spirit of adventure and what the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has just referred to as the glamour of the Army have swayed the young imagination. That is the sort of boy that we want in the Army, and it is altogether misplaced generosity to be led away by the anxiety of parents to seek to get these boys out of the Army if they want to stay in the Army. The proposed new Clause would mean, if it were carried, that any parent or guardian would only have to ask for the release of a boy and, whether he wanted to or not, the boy would have to be discharged. In other words, the parent or guardian, quite regardless of the wishes, the interests, the character, and the ambitions of the boy, would have the absolute right of denying him his choice if he wished to serve the Crown in this way.
In very many cases the boy of 17 is a much better judge of what his career should be than are his parents. He may have a far better understanding of what his own aptitudes are, and it is a very fine thing indeed that this release of boys of 17 should only be allowed where there is real need, proved to the satisfaction of the authorities, that the boy should return home, a need with which the boy himself agrees. If he does not feel that there is need for him at home, and the parent does not set up grounds of compassion and also see that there is a job waiting for the boy in civil life, he is far better paid, clothed, occupied, and
fed, and there is a far better future in front of him, in the Army than in most civil avocations at the present time. Because the Amendment is so reactionary and contrary to the true interests of the ordinary British boy, I hope ale Minister will make no concession at all in this matter.

Mr. PRICE: I rise to add my appeal to the Minister to give serious consideration to this Clause, and I am somewhat surprised at the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst), who has just sat down, because I think it will be found, in the annals of the 500 boys or so who are supposed to enlist under age every year, that the circumstances referred to by him do not apply. The Committee has a right to look at the moral of the proposal, and surely there is an age limit below which a boy is not fit to make up his mind with regard to taking so responsible a step as entering the Army. As my hon. Friend who moved the Clause rightly said, a large percentage of these youths usually enter the Army owing possibly to some family grievance or a fit of temper, and regret it afterwards. It is not true to suggest that when they enlist, and compassionate grounds are pleaded, they are always released. I have known many cases where the compassionate grounds were unquestionable, but where the boy has not been released, so that it is not true to say that where compassionate grounds are proved it is a very easy job. It is a most difficult job to get these boys out once they are in, and surely a nation like ours ought not to depend for its fighting forces upon school children, because some of these boys are far from maturity and far from the age when they are able to decide their own destinies.
I think the time has certainly arrived when this nation's policy with regard to entrance into the Army or any of the fighting forces ought to be regulated by a definite age limit, and no boys ought to be encouraged to enlist until they arrive at that age. The last speaker talked about the glory of the Army, but that has been very misleading for many generations. There is sometimes more than glory in the Army, and I suggest that at least we ought to endeavour to recruit our defence forces from boys who are somewhere nearer the age of man-
hood, and not depend on mere children. I think it is true to say that, among those who are estimated to have enlisted last year under the age of 18, in the majority of cases they left homes which could well do with their return, and some of them have been refused a return.
It is certainly not true to suggest that there would be much difficulty in getting birth certificates where entrance to the forces might require it. We should not encourage children to enlist. I am a father of a family, and I say very seriously that I would not consider that a lad of mine, at 17 years of age, was sufficiently mature and stabilised, without family guidance, definitely to make up his mind as to what was best for him; and that applies to the majority of lads. I do not think we have any right, particularly at this time of day, needlessly to encourage infants into the fighting forces, when, as a matter of fact, we were told, when the Army Estimates were before us, that we had recruits in plenty last year well over the age of 18.

Lieut.-Colonel POWELL: Speaking as the commanding officer of a battalion, I would like to make a few remarks on this subject of the Army and recruiting. I do not know I shall be in order, but many other hon. Members have not been in order if I am not, in taking up this point about not allowing recruits into Vile Army before 18. I feel that the subject is important from several points of view. One is the difficulty which arises at once, if you get a boy enlisting under 18, that you train him for six or nine months and he is then due to go abroad. Any medical authority will tell you, on the question of going abroad to a hot climate, that it is most unsuitable to send men before 19 or 20 years of age, and from that point of view it is a mistake to take a boy under 18. With considerable experience in the Army, I would suggest that it is quite easy to discourage recruiting sergeants from taking them before that age. An order sent round to the recruiting sergeants to the effect that they would not be congratulated if it was found that they had got a certain number of boys under 18, would to a great extent meet that difficulty.
As far as the Clause is concerned, however, there is a point of view which seems to have escaped some hon. Members who have spoken, and from the point of view
of a commanding officer I certainly hope it will not be accepted. It has been assumed by one or two hon. Members that a commanding officer wants to keep an unwilling soldier, but any hon, Member who has had experience of soldiering will know that nothing gives more trouble to a commanding officer or to any officer or non-commissioned officer than an unwilling soldier, and if you give a commanding officer half a chance to get rid of one, he will jump at it. It is therefore rather a mistake to suggest that a commanding officer would in any way coerce a man to stay in the Army.
There is another point which relates more directly to the Amendment, and that is the suggestion that a boy should be removed from the Army merely on the application of a parent or guardian. I have had many cases to deal with in the last few years, and I would ask the Minister to give the commanding officers a little latitude in this matter. They are quite reasonable men, and they do what they consider best, the same as anybody else. Do not tie them down to endless regulations. I think there are the best part of 2,000 now, and you do not want to add any more. If you give a commanding officer a certain amount of latitude, I will tell you what generally decides him with regard to releasing a boy. The first thing that you want to be careful about is that if he goes home there is a chance of his getting a proper job, a better job than he has in the Army. When some Member of Parliament writes to a commanding officer and says, "Will you on humane grounds release this man?" the first thing you have to be careful about, before releasing him is to he sure that he has a good job to go to.
There is another condition which I think is also right. The boy might say that as he is 17 he can make up his own mind. Incidentally, I was an officer in a regiment before I was 18, and I had to make up my mind. We should not lose sight of the question whether a boy is really anxious to stay in the Army. People do not seem to appreciate that we cannot have enough boys who are anxious to stay and to get on. Education in the Army is very good; the boys go to school and get their second-class certificate; and a boy may intend to make a job of it and be very anxious to stay and get promotion. The question therefore whether a boy wishes to stay should rest
to a certain extent with the boy himself. It ought not to be left entirely to the demand of a parent or guardian regardless of the boy's wishes, and regardless of whether he has a job or not.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not see why a boy who has joined the Army should be compelled to leave because a parent or guardian demands it. I have been in the House as many years as a good many Members who are present, and during all that time I do not think that I have had a dozen cases in which parents or guardians have desired to have their boys returned to them from the Army. I have brought them to the notice of the War Office; careful consideration has always been given to them, and in cases where the War Office have considered that the circumstances warranted a boy coming out, I have never found any great difficulty in getting him returned to his parents. According to the wording of the Amendment, any soldier who joins before he is 18 can be discharged on the demand of his parent. Suppose a man joins before he is 18 and gets tired of the Army after two or three years' service. He can then say that he wants to leave, and, although he has attained the age of 20 or 21, the fact of his having joined before 18 gives him the right to demand his release. Whoever drafted the Clause cannot, I am sure, have meant that. It is one of the most loosely worded Clauses of an important nature which I have ever seen brought before the House. Of course, that was not what was contemplated, and it only shows how some proposals are brought forward without the slightest consideration of how far they will take us.
I have had a good many men under my command at various times, and I have seen a great desire on the part of young fellows at the age of 17 or 17½ to join the Colours and to get on. According to the Clause, we are not to mind the boy's desire and his eagerness to attain promotion, but he is to be compelled to come out of the Service if a guardian asks for him. Boys of 17 and 18, and girls also, know their own minds, and in the great majority of cases boys who join the Army under 18 know full well what they are going to do in the Army and have
a desire to join the Colours. I hope that we shall leave it to the common sense of commanding officers, who do not want unwilling soldiers. A commanding officer wants his battalion or his brigade to be in a happy and contented condition, and they do not require men in the Army, any more than employers require men in civilian life, who will create strife and restlessness. Wherever a commanding officer wants to get rid of such a. man, he will not keep him against his desire.
A parent usually asks his boy what sort of vocation he wants to follow and allows him to follow any vocation he likes, but according to this Clause, when it comes to the Fighting Services, we are to lay down that the parent has to decide. That is a great mistake. The release of boys on compassionate grounds has been worked with sympathy in the past in all three branches of the Service, and I hope that the Government will continue on those lines, which have been quite satisfactory. Of course, we do not want recruiting sergeants to go round with instructions to look for school boys. It is only in cases where a, recruiting sergeant has been specially desirous of getting in recruits where this Clause might be needed, but in such cases assistance is given for the release of boys.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) and noted with some care the observations be made about his own experience. He said that, although he had been a Member of the House for a good number of years, he had never, except on rare occasions, come up against any difficulty in getting a boy out of the Army. The hon. and gallant Member represents Dulwich, and there are not many Dulwiches in the country. There are not many people in Dulwich who are obliged, because of economic conditions, to look to the Army as a way out of their difficulties. Nor are there many cases in Dulwich of parents who find that their children have gone into the Army without their consent. In any such case in Dulwich the required £20 would be readily forthcoming. I agree that there is a. point in regard to the technical shortcomings of the Clause to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman directed our attention, but, if the general principle is
accepted by the Financial Secretary, I am sure that it will be possible to add a few limiting words to say that a person who had been two or three years in the Army could not avail himself of the right.
There is, however, a principle in the Clause to which we attach great importance. The choice of a career is not a simple thing, and in these days it is becoming a more difficult problem than it has ever been. Since the choice of a career is highly important, the question arises whether a person of the age of 17 or thereabouts is adequately equipped to review the position attaching to a given Service in such a way that he can take a decision on his own responsibility. Over and over again hon. Members on the other side have quite properly emphasised the great principle of parental responsibility. When I was associated some two years ago with a colleague in the late Government in trying to commend to the House a Bill dealing with the raising of the school age, and another Bill dealing with the education of the canal boat child, I remember the enthusiasm shown by hon. Gentlemen for the great fundamental principle of parental responsibility. Now, apparently, parental responsibility has not the same claim on them as it had in those somewhat remote days. A boy who goes into the Army at the age of 17 or thereabouts may take a decision, lightly, without adequate circumspection, that is to determine his career for a number of years. It may be seven or 10, and at the end of that time, about the age of 24 or 27, unless he enlists for a further period, he goes into the world. Perhaps he finds that he is handicapped by the decision he took in his less responsible days.
5.0 p.m.
The House ought not to make a decision of that sort easy for a boy of such immature age. There Jan be very little dispute on the general principle that, whether a parent has an overriding decision or not in the matter, he ought surely to be consulted. A parent might ask the boy if he prefers to stay in the Army or not, and he might tell him, "If it is your will to stay, I will not stand in your way." But that is a different thing entirely from what we contemplate in the Amendment. We are considering the case of the child—for such these young lads are—who has entered the
Army, perchance as the result of some pique, some resentment at parental admonition, perhaps because of the attraction of going with one's comrades in the street; but, whatever the cause, the young fellow takes a step that commits his career for a considerable measure of time. We think such a step ought not to be taken except with the definite consent of the person who above all others surely has the right to be first consulted. An hon. and gallant Member opposite spoke very sympathetically on this matter, and I was tremendously impressed with what he said, but, with great respect, I do not concede the principle that even a commanding officer ought to have the right of determining whether a boy has a better job to go to than the job he has in the Army. That is not his prerogative; if it is anyone's prerogative, it is that of the parents of the child. The argument about a better type of job being available does not carry that conviction to me which it seems to carry to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There is, however, one very substantial point which he put, for which we thank him, and that arises when the boy's regiment is suddenly called upon to go abroad. It is a serious matter to send a boy of that age to the other end of the world. Surely it cannot be argued that a boy of that age is endowed with the power of self-control which older people possess, or that his physical attributes are sufficiently developed to enable him to withstand the rigours of foreign climates.
Hon. Members on all sides have conceded the point that they do not desire unwilling people in the Army. I wish that view could have been applied to my case in earlier days. I should not have remained as long as I did if they had shown such readiness to dismiss unwilling people; but, apparently, we have moved some considerable distance from that stage. Here is the central point at issue. Personally, I may not like the choice the young man has made, but if a person 18 years of age has determined upon the Army as an avenue of service or as offering him a career I feel that he has arrived at that decision at an age when his judgment ought to be given due weight; but I cannot feel that the same measure of attention ought to be given to the decision of a younger person. In the
Children's Bill which is in Committee upstairs the Government has raised the age at which an offender is exempt from the death penalty from 16 to 18. I admit that it is not exactly the same point, but it is not inapposite to this discussion to cite the fact that the Government have decided in that connection that 18 is the more appropriate age at which to fix responsibility. Even though the actual wording of the new Clause may require slight modification, I hope that it may be accepted by the War Office.

Mr. COOPER: As the hon. Member who moved this Clause said, this subject has often been discussed in this House. I should have thought that the fact that during the two years the Socialist Government were in office, when he himself held a very responsible position in one of the Service Departments, this Clause was not considered or passed, would perhaps have sufficed as an answer to the queries he has put this afternoon. At the same time we cannot object to the way in which he moved the Clause or to the speeches made on behalf of it. I think that the greater number of the points raised have been adequately answered by some of my hon. Friends. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) has laid his finger upon one very important point, and shown that the Clause as it stands is unworkable. I am sure hon. Members opposite did not intend to say that because a boy joined when he was 17 years and 11 months old he should be released from the Army six years afterwards if he happened to think then that it was a suitable time to leave. I should imagine that what they really mean is that the privilege that we at present extend to boys who have joined when under 17, and whose age is discovered before they reach the age of 17, should be extended to boys before they reach the age of 18.
There is another point which makes this Clause unacceptable. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) showed that he was conscious of the difference between boys who join as drummers or buglers with the consent of their parents and boys who join as men by giving a false age. This Clause would affect boys who join as boys with their parents' consent, and the parents could come back six months afterwards and say, "We
now want the boy back." Therefore, the Clause as it stands is quite unacceptable. Our main objection to the Clause which hon. Members opposite intended to move is based on economic grounds. We cannot accept the position that boys of 17 should be allowed to try the Army for three or four months and, if they find they do not Ike it, then throw it up. During the early months after a recruit joins be is a complete liability to the State. We spend a lot of money upon him. We pay for his equipment, his training, and for the education which he receives during that period, and if during that time or at end of it he is to be allowed to change his mind, or if his parents, finding their conditions have improved or that the facts which induced them to urge him to go into the Army have altered, are to be allowed to take him out of the Army, a position would arise which we could not accept. We wish to make it plain that that is really all we are arguing about, whether the age be 17 or 18, and I think hon. Members will see that there is a good deal to be said for our point of view.
After all, in whatever sphere of life a boy may be born, he usually has to make up his mind before he is 17 as to the profession he is going to join. In most cases he does so with the consent of his parents. They do not compel him. If a boy decides to join the Navy he does it of his own will. There are very few cases in which he is compelled to join. Probably the parents approve of his determination, but it is the boy's own wish, and I am sure nobody can feel that because the boy changes his mind a few years later he ought to be allowed to go back to civil life. It is a great responsibility to thrust upon a boy, but at the age of 17 great responsibilities are, unfortunately, thrust upon all of us. We have to take decisions then which will affect our whole lives, and in my opinion it is just as well that boys should be conscious of their responsibility at that age.

Mr. COVE: Working-class boys?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, working-class boys.

Mr. COVE: Only working-class boys?

Mr. COOPER: I do not say "only working-class boys."

Mr. COVE: The boys at Eton and Harrow do not have to decide.

Mr. COOPER: Boys who join up as midshipmen do so long before they are 17. No class question arises here. A boy who wishes to be an officer in the Army makes up his mind long before he is 17 whether he is going to an Army class or to a crammer. It has been said that 17 is an age at which boys are susceptible, but I suggest that many worse things than the British Army may charm and mislead a boy and get hold of his susceptibilities at that age. I do not think it is a bad thing for a boy of 17 to be in the Army. Distinctions made by age are always rough and unsatisfactory. One boy at 16 is equal to another boy at 19, and a boy of 19 may be years behind. In this matter we rely upon the good sense and judgment of our recruiting officers. They have instructions not to try to get young boys into the Army, but to get boys of a sufficient age and sufficient physical development—boys who seem to them to be fit for the Army and appear to them to be 18. The hon. Member for Aberdare said there ought to be no doubt in this matter, that doubt ought to be brushed away. There is no doubt. The age of recruitment is 18, and every boy knows that if he joins the Army under that age he has signed a false attestation.
An alternative put forward was that we should require the production of his birth certificate, although the remarks on that subject are really more appropriate to another Amendment. We always object, and I think the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) gave some indication of why we object, to the suggestion that birth certificates should be required. It is a practical suggestion, but there are many reasons against it. Some boys joining the Army do not wish the circumstances of their birth and of their parentage to be discovered, to be published—so far as they are aware—perhaps to those who are going to be their comrades in the barracks during the next few months, though, of course, it would be quite easy to get over that difficulty. Boys coming from unhappy homes do not want to produce their birth certificates, and a great many would find considerable difficulty in getting them. They have drifted from their homes, they have lost sight of their parents, who may
be in trouble, may even be in prison, and they do not know where the birth certificate is to be found; and, I for one, am very much against any increase of this system of inquisition and inquiry at every turn. If an upstanding boy, looking as though he were 18, wishes to join the Army, I think he ought to be taken without having to fill up a lot of forms and produce certificates as to where and when he was born and who are his parents.

Mr. PRICE: Are the Government prepared to adopt that view in the case of the means test?

Mr. COOPER: I am not concerned with the means test.

Mr. GROVES: Would it not be easier for the recruiting officer to get the information from Somerset House, as is done in the case of applicants for old age pensions? The boy himself would not know how the information was secured, and there could be no invidious treatment of the boy.

Mr. COOPER: Of course, I cannot consider that point now, but it seems a reasonable suggestion. With regard to the releasing of boys who have joined under age the course which has been suggested would probably waste the boy's life to some extent, and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite have suggested that a boy should be allowed to try the Army for a few months, and chuck it up if he does not like it. I do not think that that is a very good suggestion, because we do not want to encourage young boys, who might not like the harshness or unpleasantness of the Sergeant-Major during the first three months, to be able to throw up the Army, and thus end a career which they may have entered with enthusiasm only a few months before. I think we can safely leave the decision on this point in the hands of the recruiting officer. Most of the cases which have been brought to the notice of the War Office have been sympathetically considered, and for these reasons I hope hon. Members opposite will not press this new Clause to a Division because it is one which the Government cannot possibly accept.

Mr. J. JONES: Ever since I have taken part in public life I think it has always been recognised that so far as
the working-class soldier is concerned hunger has been the main recruiting sergeant, particularly in the case of young men. When unemployment is rife and depression prevails the recruiting figures always go up, and why? Those who have been brought up under working-class conditions know that very often a young man between 16 and 18 does not find himself always welcome at home, because his family cannot maintain a growing lad who requires as much food as and even more than those who are much older. A labourer with a family of two or three young boys finds it almost impossible to keep them. In these circumstances, when there is no employment to be found for young boys, it is no good talking about them having a free choice or a right to decide for themselves. It is a case of Hobson's choice.
The boys have to find some employment, and the Army or the Navy presents to them a way out of their economic difficulties, more particularly when things at home are not as good as they might be. Hon. Members connected with our various military organisations must take into consideration the economic position of the class of boys they are dealing with. The Army is a very fine occupation for those who like it. I was glad to hear an hon. Friend of mine say that the sergeant-major was not always an angel. If the sergeant-major was anything but what he is, he would not be wanted in the Army because he has to be a disciplinarian. The sergeant-major is not always very careful with the language he uses, and if a private used similar language we know what would happen to him. The Army is not intended for people who are weak in the head in the sense that they are not always strong in the body especially at times of crises, and then we take them in in more ways than one. When men were disabled during the War all kinds of excuses were put forward for not giving them any pension. We know how many of those men are now walking the streets of our great towns and cities, and they are compelled to go to the relieving officer.
I am not one who believes that we can do without armies or navies altogether. I wish the people of the world would agree that there is a better way of
settling disputes than resorting to war, but as long as we have an army and navy we must have recruits, but we should not place the responsibility of deciding the question we are discussing upon boys of 16 or 17 years of age. It is not fair to compare a boy from the slums who joins the Army with a boy who comes from the public schools at Harrow or Eton. Take the case of a boy in my constituency, with nothing but starvation staring him in the face, going about the streets singing "Rule Britannia" on an empty stomach. Can any comparison be made between that boy and an Eton boy? Before you give these boys freedom of choice you must give them equality of position, and you will not do that while the present Government have to deal with these matters. Under these conditions, it is absurd to say that a boy is choosing his own career. In one case the boy has economic security and in the other there is no guarantee whatever of economic security. Every boy who leaves our public schools knows that he will be able to enter a decent job at the end of his career, probably with superannuation, but in cases where hunger has been the recruiting sergeant the boys do not join because they love the Army and the Navy, but because they are compelled to do so by economic circumstances. It is said that a boy at 16 knows enough to be able to use his own judgment in these matters. I am aware that there are boys of 13 years of age who know more than boys at 16, but that is not the fault of the boy, and it is no reason why he should be made food for powder. When a lad is old enough to form his own judgment he should have a free choice, but up to now the boys have not had a free choice. Very often a boy joins the Army in order to be in a position to help his parents.

Mr. GROVES: Could not the War Office consider the practicability of getting evidence as to the boy's age from Somerset House? In London the boys are recruited at Scotland Yard, which is very near to Somerset House, and within 10 minutes they would be able to find out the age of the recruit. Inquiries could be made, if necessary, in the Provinces, and that would only mean a delay of about a day. The reply which has been given by the Government does not accept the principle underlying our Amendment.

Mr. COOPER: I am quite prepared to take into consideration the suggestion which has been made by hon. Members opposite. A man who joins the Army under a name that is not his own generally does so because he has unfortunately got into trouble, and wishes to start again with a clean sheet. In those cases, I think it is sound policy, on the part of the military authority, not to insist too much upon the past being raked up. Many men who have made a bad start in life are anxious to find opportunities to start again, and I think what I have said meets the point put by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. GROVES: I must say that I was taught very early not to argue from particular cases to a general principle, and I have yet to learn that the Army is a place where people are going to be turned from black sheep into white.

Mr. COOPER: Why not?

Mr. GROVES: That is certainly not in accordance with the arguments adduced at this Table when representatives of the War Office are asking for recruits.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 276.

Division No. 149.]
AYES.
[5.31 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas w.
Maxton, James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cove, William G.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hicks, Ernest George
Rathbone, Eleanor


Daggar, George
Hirst, George Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)



Devlin, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lawson, John James
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.




Groves.


NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, w.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chotzner, Alfred James
Ganzoni, Sir John


Albery, Irving James
Clarke, Frank
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Clarry, Reginald George
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)


Atkinson, Cyril
Clayton Dr. George C.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glossop, C. W. H.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Bainlel, Lord
Colville, John
Goff, Sir Park


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cook, Thomas A.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cooke, Douglas
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cooper, A. Duff
Grattan-Doyle, Sir (Nicholas)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (portsm'th,C.)
Cowan, D. M.
Graves, Marjorle


Bernays, Robert
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Cranborne, Viscount
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Grimston, R. V.


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Crossley, A. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Blindell, James
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Borodale, Viscount
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hales, Harold K.


Bossom, A. C.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Boulton, W. W.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hanley, Dennis A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Donner, P. W.
Hartland, George A.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Doran, Edward
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)


Briant, Frank
Duckworth, George A. V.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Duggan, Hubert John
Hallgers, Captain F. F. A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington,N.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eastwood, John Francis
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Asten)


Burghley, Lord
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Eimley, Viscount
Hopkinson, Austin


Burnett, John George
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hornby, Frank


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Horobin, Ian M.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fermoy, Lord
Howard, Tom Forrest


Castlereagh, Viscount
Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Cautloy, Sir Henry S.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Hudson, Robert 8pear (Southport)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.(Birm., W)
Fox, Sir Glfford
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Hurd, Percy A.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hunt, Sir Gerald B.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Munro, Patrick
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Iveagh, Countess of
Nail-Coin, Arthur Ronald N.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


James, Wing-Corn. A. w. H.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Kerr, Hamilton w.
North, Captain Edward T.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Nunn, William
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stones, James


Knebworth, viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Knox. Sir Alfred
Palmer, Francis Noel
Strauss, Edward A.


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Patrick, Colin M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pearson, William G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Levy, Thomas
Penny, Sir George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Petherick, M.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Taylor,Vice Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Mabane, William
Pike, Cecil F.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


McCorquodale, M. S.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scaham)
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Turton, Robert Hugh


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M, (Midlothian)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


McKle, John Hamilton
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ramsden, E.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


McLean, Major Alan
Rea, Walter Russell
Wayland, Sir William A.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Weymouth, Viscount


Makins, Brigadler-General Ernest
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
White, Henry Graham


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Robinson, John Roland
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Rosbotham, S. T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Martin, Thomas B.
Ross, Ronald D.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Millar, Sir James Duncan
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Salmon, Major Isidore
Withers, Sir John James


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Womersley, Walter James


Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingtley


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wood, Sir Murdoch Mckenzie (Banff)


Mitcheson, G. G.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Savery, Samuel Servington
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Moreing, Adrian C.
Scone, Lord



Morgan, Robert H.
Selley, Harry R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morris, John Patrick (Saiford, N.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Lord Erskine and Commander




Southby.


Resolution agreed to.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The proposed new Clause which stands next on the Paper—(Attendance at church parade not to be compulsory)—in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) is out of order.

Mr. BERNAYS: Could you indicate, Captain Bourne, why this particular Clause is out of order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have given the Clause very careful consideration, and have looked up the precedents, and I find that, although this question has been raised many times during the last five and twenty years, it has always been raised, except on one occasion, in Committee of Supply, and on that occasion, in 1925, my predecessor ruled that, as it related to a matter of administration, it should be dealt with in Committee of Supply and not in the Committee stage of this Bill.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of the Army Act applicable also (unless otherwise expressly provided) to the Air Force Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I ask one question of the Financial Secretary to the War Office? On page 14, the paragraph amending Section 64 of the Army Act reads as follows:
After Sub-section (3) there shall be inserted the following Sub-section:
'(3a) A military prisoner or soldier under sentence of detention who was sentenced in a Dominion shall undergo his sentence either in that Dominion, or in the United Kingdom, or in such other place as may be prescribed.'
I would like to ask what precisely is intended by this proposed new Sub-
section? It seems to me that it gives very wide powers indeed—so wide that a person who had been sentenced might be sent to the other end of the world in carrying out the sentence of the court. He might have committed an offence in, say, Australia, but there appears to be nothing here to prevent his being sent for detention to Canada. Why is it that this very wide power is being sought?

Mr. COOPER: The object of these words is this: Supposing that British troops were being withdrawn from the locality in which the offence was committed, then the man sentenced could be taken with them and undergo his sentence in whatever other place the troops might move to in the future. They might be going to some different station, or to some place abroad, and it is necessary to provide for the possibility of the sentence being served in another place, because otherwise the Clause would not be operative.

Third Schedule (Amendments of the Air Force Act) and Fourth Schedule (Enactments repealed) agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PREAMBLE.

Mr. MAXTON: I wish to move an Amendment to the Preamble—in page 2, line 21, to leave out the words "or stir up sedition."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment is out of order.

Mr. MAXTON: I am very much surprised that the ordinary courtesy of the House was not extended to me, as it is to other people, and that that information was not conveyed to me privately. I do not think that the fact that the group with which I am associated is small in numbers should deny us the ordinary courtesies that are commonly extended to others. I am bound to accept your Ruling, but I certainly would like some understanding from you as to the grounds on which your Ruling is given.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the first point which has been put to me by the hon. Member, it is not customary to inform Members as to whether their Amendments are in order or out of order, but it is always open to any Member to come and inquire if his Amendment is in order. The hon. Mem-
ber did not so inquire, and I only saw his Amendment for the first time this morning. With regard to the second point, I would point out that the Preamble is a recitation of the effect, not of this Bill, but of the Army Act. To bring this Amendment into order, it would be necessary to amend the Section of the Army Act which deals with the offences of mutiny, sedition and so on. No such Amendment has been made, and an Amendment to the Preamble of this Bill could only be consequential upon such an Amendment having been made.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS PROLONGATION (UNEMPLOYED PERSONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of period in, respect of which transitional payments may be made in, certain cases.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: The Parliamentary Secretary referred on Friday to the Blanesburgh Committee's Report, and pointed out that the basis of subsequent insurance was the recommendation of that committee that normal unemployment in the post-War years was not likely to exceed 6 per cent. of insured persons, and it was on that erroneous estimate of the prospects of unemployment that the contributions of the employed persons, employers and the State were based. We now find that persons who have been insured for many years axe suffering penalties, not because of anything that they themselves have done, but because of the unwarranted optimism of those who sat on the Blanesburgh Committee. The hon. Gentleman has referred to three or four cases. The number of the cases to which he has called attention in any Debate has not gone beyond three. I have not heard anyone speaking for the Government refer to the insured person who joined insurance and commenced paying contributions
in 1912 and has been paying ever since on his own behalf, and who will have an aggregate of nearly £50 to his credit. It is possible for a person to have, with the employer's and the State contributions, nearly £50 to his credit and yet, after unemployment of 26 weeks in one insurance year, when he will have received a sum of no more than £20, his benefit will have ceased and the State will have profited to the extent of £30 on his contributions. That should be borne in mind always when we remember the kind of treatment that is being given under the means test.
The larger percentage of workpeople who have to undergo the means test is drawn from those special classes of industry which were the first to be insured. We find, for example, in engineering, a percentage of unemployment running up to 60 per cent. of the insured workpeople. The highest percentage is to be found in the industry which avers the very first to be scheduled for insurance purposes, and the lowest percentage is often to be found in those industries which appear very much later in the scheme. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give fresh consideration to that point, that there are already men who have paid a larger measure than the whole of the benefits they have received and yet, because of the way in which this Bill has been worked, they will find themselves liable to have their benefit stopped, while there should still be a large sum standing to their credit in the fund. The unfairness of the Bill altogether lies in the fact that the incidence of the means test varies so much. There are people who were among the first to be insured, and who have been the most regular contributors, who are now liable to have their transitional benefit stopped. This incidence bears heavier in some industries than in others. There is, in addition to the industrial incidence, the geographical incidence. This means test will be applied in the main against men engaged in certain industries and resident or occupied normally in certain districts, and a glance over the results of the application of the means test so far will show that in certain areas, because of their peculiar industrial experience and of the character of the industries which have been built up
there, they have suffered enormous deprivations while other areas, where the character and disposition of the industries are different, the percentage of disallowances is very much smaller and the effect of the means test is very much less harsh.
I should like to say a word or two with regard to the very unfair and unjust attack that has been made upon habits of thrift. The persistence of this saving habit and the tenacity with which savings and possessions have been retained during adversity is significant not only of the permanence of this habit of saving, but also of the high level of self-respect which has withstood all the demoralising influences of unemployment. The Minister gave figures on Thursday relating to centres so widely spread and so different in character as London, Birmingham, Cardiff, Wigan, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Blackpool, Bolton, Brighton and Eastbourne, representing geographically almost the whole of England and part of Wales, embracing a total of almost exactly 500,000 unemployed men. Analysing the results of the means test, one finds that in London full benefit is paid to 57 per cent. of applicants under the means test, reduced benefit to 22 per cent. and benefit was disallowed to 21 per cent. In Birmingham full benefit has been given only to 34 per cent., reduced benefit to 45 per cent. and total disallowance 20 per cent. In Cardiff full benefit has been paid to 78 per cent., reduced benefit to 13 per cent. and total disallowance 4 per cent. When we come to Eastbourne, where there is not a very large body of unemployment, we find, strange to say, that the percentage of those who draw full benefit is exactly the same as in Cardiff—78 per cent.—20 per cent. get reduced benefit and 2 per cent. complete disallowance. Taking the whole of the 500,000 in the places I have named, the figures are, full benefit 47 per cent.; reduced benefit 39 per cent.; and no benefit 14 per cent. Fourteen per cent. of 500,000 is a figure of nearly 80,000. Coming back to the figures for the whole country, on the same day we were told they showed that 1,400,000 initial applications have been made, and the percentages are almost exactly the same; 200,000 have received no benefits, 500,000 have received reduced benefits and over 700,000 have received full benefit.
The sole justification for the means test has been the exercise of national economy. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary where these 200,000 people have gone. They have made their applications and have been turned down. Where do they appear next? Do they appear on the list of registered unemployed? Do they appear on the list of those drawing parish relief? It is difficult to trace them. It will require time to trace them, but there is very strong ground for suspicion that a large number of these initial applicants have already made their appearance on the figures of the Poor Law authorities because, by a very strange coincidence, the number of people who have gone on to the Poor Law is almost exactly equal to the number who have gone off transitional benefit.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Will the hon. Member give me the dates to which he is referring?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. GRENFELL: The period during which 200,000 people have been denied unemployment benefit is between 15th November and 20th February. The 200,000 additional people have gone on to the Poor Law since September last, when the National Government came into office. In the last six months we have had an addition of 200,000 people to the list of Poor Law recipients. The Parliamentary Secretary is not satisfied. He has commented upon the means test on two or three occasions in the past week. He, apparently, thinks that the means test is being applied all right. He has no complaint at all against those areas where the total disqualifications run to as much as 25 per cent. Indeed, he makes no complaint where more than 50 per cent. of the applicants for transitional benefit have either found their claims totally rejected or their benefits reduced. His only admonition is in respect of those areas where sympathy has been shown. Where a means test has been applied with an element of sympathy and understanding, the Minister has chosen to go to those areas in order to quote those ridiculous cases—three only in number. Out of 200,000 people struck off benefit, three only had riled the conscience of the hon. Gentleman. He said to the House
that he could find other cases. I will challenge him. He will not find 3,000 comparable cases in the whole list of 200,000 people who have been turned down. I make the challenge, and shall await his reply. The hon. Gentleman has given those horrible examples and his speech has been given the widest publicity in the Press of the country. He owes it to the unemployed and to the public assistance committees to give another impression rather than to give the idea that large numbers of men are drawing unemployment benefit who have no need for it. The truth should be stated, and the truth is that the people who need the money very much are being denied even the smallest measure of assistance by public assistance committees.
I have tried to analyse the position of those people. The Minister of Health told us last Friday that certain maladjustments might be put right as a result of area conferences—a conference in the North, in the South, in the Midlands, and a conference here and a conference there. The conferences are to have the assistance and guidance of inspectors of the Ministry of Labour, and, I believe, of the Ministry of Health. As a result of the conferences, it is expected that greater uniformity will be brought about. I ask the Minister, who has certainlty some responsibility in this matter, how can inspectors of the Ministry of Labour give direction to those conferences unless they have been previously told by the Minister of Labour what kind of direction they are to give? If the Minister of labour is competent to give instructions to those advisers at the conferences, why cannot he give the information to the Committee? Repeated requests have been made to the Government from this side of the Committee during the last two, three or five months. More than one Minister has been questioned, and I will put the question again to-day. What are the Government going to tell those people? What do the Government believe to be the right interpretation of the Orders in Council which they have issued? What do the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister expect? Do they expect unanimity to be carried through on the basis of the least sympathetic public assistance committee? Do they expect the public assistance committees to be guided by and to follow
the footsteps of the more sympathetic committees? Is the process of pauperisation to go on until 1933?
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary and those who sit on the benches opposite, to whichever party they belonged before they pointed the Government, to look upon the problem as the most human problem they will have to face during the tenure of their ill-gotten authority to occupy the benches opposite. I ask the hon. Gentleman to examine more closely the kind of cases which are disallowed. I represent an industrial area. I have spent the greater part of my time in a dangerous occupation. The majority of my friends and acquaintances are coal miners. One-sixth of the men engaged in that industry are injured so seriously every year as to enable them to claim compensation. 150,000 people are injured in that one industry alone, a large proportion of whom suffer long periods of partial disability. They receive compensation at the rate of 5s., 8s., 10s. or 12s. a week. They are unfitted for their own employment, and are unable to get any further employment. They wait month after month in the vain hope of securing employment, and, because of their partial capacity, they are entitled to draw unemployment benefit. Having been unemployed for 26 weeks in the insurance year the people with a small pittance in the form of partial compensation have to appear before the public assistance committee. A man may have lost his hand or have serious internal injuries or suffer from neurasthenia. He goes to the public assistance committee. He is asked what income he receives, and he says that he receives 8s. or 10s. a week in compensation. Does the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Minister, or anybody on the opposite side of the Committee say that the small sum which is due to a man because of his special disability should be taken into account and his benefit reduced?

Mr. PIKE: Why is it given?

Mr. GRENFELL: I am asking the people who are responsible. If the inspectors who are to go round the country are expected to be able to give direction and advice, why cannot the Parliamentary Secretary give that direction and advice to the people equally responsible with him in the House of Commons for
the character of the legislation which is passed? Is a workman in receipt of compensation to be allowed to retain any part of his compensation, or is every penny of his compensation to be taken into consideration and deducted from the benefit he would otherwise get? There is the soldier's disability pension. We all know that kind of case. It is the same kind of disability. One is disability as a result of war service, and the other is disability as a result of industrial service, and I do not know where to draw the line between the two. A good deal of sympathy has been verbally expressed in the House of Commons with the ex-Service men, but I have not heard any sympathy expressed by Members on the opposite side of the Committee with workmen in receipt of compensation. I put them on exactly the same footing. If the small sums which are called partial compensation in one case and disability pension in the other are to be taken into consideration, why does not the Minister say so, and why does not he take the responsibility? If it is not the intention of the Government, why do they not tell the House and their inspectors when at those conferences that those two categories of income are to be left outside the calculation?
There is the case of the man who is the owner of the house he occupies. I regard it as a very grave injustice indeed against a man who is, perhaps, occupying a house in which he has lived for 20, 25 or 30 years and for which he is paying by means of contributions to a building society or a friendly society, or by means of a private mortgage. Such an effort to pay for a house is an epic story of struggle, courage and steadfastness. It is a story of self-denial and of hardships incurred in the effort to acquire a measure of justifiable independence and of freedom to indulge in house pride, which is so strong a feature in the lives of our men and women. The desire to own a little house causes years and years of sacrifice. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister and other Members of the Government to say whether they will take the responsibility of telling those people that all their sacrifices are to count for nothing, and that now they are to be penalised because of the sacrifices and efforts they have made. There are the people who have a few pounds in the bank. Members of the
present Administration have quoted with pride figures relating to working-class savings. For the purpose of political controversy, they have pointed with pride to the thrift of the working classes of this country. They have shown how the possession of house property, shares in building societies and friendly societies, and money in the savings bank are deemed to be worthy of the working class when it comes to political controversy, but when it comes to the application of the means test, the people who have a few pounds in the bank are to be told, "You were wise enough and trustful when you should have trusted, and you have put your money into the savings bank, but because of that we are now going to single you out for special penalties."
Let me mention the case of the father who has grown-up children at work. Does anyone agree that parents who have nurtured and cared for their children, and have maintained a home for them until they are 21 or 22 years of age—some of them in many cases preparing for similar responsibilities in their turn—should be penalised? Does anyone say that young men of 23 or 24 working in collieries or engineering shops earning £2 10s. or £3 a week do not require every penny of that income not only to maintain themselves, but to prepare for the little home to which they wish to invite the young woman of their choice to share, in order that they in their turn may become useful citizens of this country? Does the Parliamentary Secretary or any of his colleagues say that the whole of the young man's income should be taken from him in computating the family income, and that he should not be given the opportunity of saving a few pounds with which to give himself a decent start in the future life he intends to lead? Do hon. and right hon. Members opposite stand for that? If they do not, let them say so. If they do, let them say so. Why is there reticence on the part of those directly responsible in the House of Commons, and why is such concealment to be maintained? Why is it to be left to inspectors who are to go round to those conferences to divulge the intentions of the Government when the people who are responsible in the House of Commons will not take the House into their confidence? The dis-
allowances in respect of those who have been thrifty and industrious are to be deplored. It is a tragic culmination of a life of hope and effort when people, who have striven for years, come to the conclusion that thrift does not pay. That is the lesson that the Government are driving home and have already driven home to the minds of at least 200,000 people, and they are driving it home to a larger number of people every day.
An equally deplorable result arises from the conclusion in the minds of a large number of decent working people, that the political machine is being worked to their disadvantage. They believe it, and they have a right to believe it. Hundreds of thousands of people have a right to believe that, a change of Government having taken place in circumstances of stress and confusion, the Government now in office are using political power to the disability of working people whose cases come to be dealt with under this machinery. The Government are creating discontent and despair in the hearts of thousands of people. Those who have for a long time resisted unemployment and all the horrors that unemployment brings, people who have known a good deal of suffering, domestic and industrial hardships in the last 10 or 12 years, have now reached almost the end of their powers of suffering and resistance. They have suffered, and we understand that there is to be no comfort, no encouragement, given to them. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Lord President of the Council, who. I believe to be sympathetic men, before they finally pass this Bill, will reconsider all the points to which I have called attention.
The unemployed in large numbers are now being treated unfairly. Those who were singled out for special reprimand are those people who have been most industrious and most thrifty. Those who have won their stripes in social life and in the organisation of labour by constant attention to their responsibilities, are now being drummed out of the industrial army and out of the insurance scheme as though they were offenders against all the canons of decency and good conduct. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking recently on the Wheat Bill, used a metaphor which I did not think
was well chosen. He appealed to the authority of this House to give the farmers a sum of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year in order to provide them with what he termed a firm platform upon which to stand in the bog which threatened to engulf them. I do not think that was a very good simile, because I did not see the bog or the danger. I would ask those who are representing the Government today, the Minister of Labour, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Lord President of the Council, and every member of the Cabinet, not to find a new platform for the unemployed, but to leave them in possession of that platform that they have built up for themselves. Their little bit of firm ground on which to stand is represented by a few pounds of savings in the savings bank, the interest on the house which they occupy, their small family income or the pension which has been given to them as a result of service in the industrial or the military field. I ask the Minister to tell the Committee whether there is any hope for each of the categories to which I have referred, because I believe that the system as it applies to every one of those categories is an injustice and an offence against people who deserve better from the Government.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Throughout the Debates on this Measure we have had various suggestions for increasing the rate of transitional payment. Whether this is to be done on the grand scale of indiscriminate relief for all, or by further minor modifications of the present Bill, the fact remains that in each and all of those cases an increased contribution from the Exchequer would be involved. If that be so, and I do not think it will be denied in any quarter of the House, may we examine how that increased contribution could be obtained? First, I am sure there will come into the minds of hon. Members opposite, borrowing. But borrowing for current expenditure has already been responsible for exterminating 80 per cent, of the forces they had in this House last summer. No doubt they will appreciate the compliment that I pay them when I say that even if we were to attempt to play with that fire, a like fate might well await us. In any case, we prefer to leave it well alone.
The only other practical alternative is by increasing taxation.
Let us not forget what is the aim of these transitional payments. Is it not to ease the lot of the man or woman who has had a prolonged period of unemployment? Is it not the height of folly to attempt to alleviate hardship by means which, in the long run, can only serve to aggravate and extend it? Indeed, as one looks round the whole horizon of the causes of unemployment, there is no single cause within our control, with the possible exception of Free Trade, that has been so responsible for gradually increasing the statistics of unemployment as high taxation. The extent to which unemployment has been increased through the crippling of works and businesses throughout the country is well indicated in the returns of companies who are forced into liquidation each year. When one looks at those figures they are, indeed, dreary reading. In 1926 some 2,737 companies were forced into liquidation; in 1927, 2,703; in 1928, 3,034, and in 1930 the enormous total of 3,113. In 1930, 400 more companies went into liquidation than in 1928. Everyone who is familiar with the economics of trade and industry knows very well that one of the main causes of these large numbers of liquidations is high taxation. Not only has the State been sweeping into its insatiable coffers the money that we need for keeping our works and business premises abreast of the times but it has prevented us from accumulating adequate resources to enable us to weather the storm and the evil day.
Thus we have the logical result of the famous policy of taxing the rich to feed the poor. In all the declarations that we have heard I do not remember hon. and right hon. Members opposite ever explaining to their followers that the only practical outcome of this policy would be that the poor would have to be fed by means of the public assistance committees. Still, with certain glaring exceptions, during the last two years we have lived to learn. The lessons of the last two years have been no more correctly interpreted by any section of people than by the working men and working women. There are to-day not 1,000, but tens of thousands of them who realise that their employers are just struggling along from day to day on a hand-to-mouth
basis. What is the attitude of those men and women towards any suggestion to increase taxation for these transitional payments Y They say immediately to every realist in this House and in the country, "For Heaven's sake forbear from piling on the last straw that will break the camel's back, that will cause the works of our employers to close down and throw us into the ranks of the unemployed." I think the Government might emphasise a little more in their policy the fact that they cannot see their way to increase these payments, simply because that increase would mar the whole basis of their policy, which is to reduce the numbers of the unemployed. Therefore, when we support this policy we may fairly claim that we are not showing less sympathy than hon. and right hon. Members opposite, but that we are exhibiting a good deal more sound common sense.
I have felt very much for the Leader of the Opposition during the past week. In the early part of the Session he made a pronouncement on the means test, quite free from any Socialistic doctrine, but just recently he seems to have been getting into hot water. Indeed, they seem to be converting him into a type of political lobster. As the water gets hotter and hotter the policy gets redder and redder. Last week we had a famous declaration from the benches opposite in favour of a policy for speeding up Utopia by indiscriminate relief on a non-contributory basis, in other words, doles for all, at the expense of none. We have heard recently remarks about party discipline as between the bench below the Gangway opposite and the bench above the Gangway, but I did not realise until we had that pronouncement last week that it would be in the end not those below but those above the Gangway who would have to toe the line.
6.30 p.m.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary on the stand they are taking against what I would call Monmouthism—the determination of one area to sponge on the rest of the country by administering these tests in an unfair manner. Any one in this House who has any sense of fairness will wish the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary full success in quick time
in dealing with these cases. I have also felt some uncertainty about the wisdom of hon. Members of this House sitting on public assistance committees in their own divisions—a matter which has cropped up once or twice in these Debates. In Birmingham we insist, very properly, that a councillor shall not sit on a public assistance committee in his own ward, and I strongly urge that we cannot expect the law to be administered with equality throughout the country if hon. Members feel it essential to continue to sit on these committees in their own divisions.
The most important feature that has been evolved in the course of these Debates is the pronouncement made by the Minister of Health last Friday. He gave us clearly to understand that there was a day-to-day collaboration between Whitehall and public assistance committees in order that the various troubles and hardships, of which we have heard so many instances during the last few days, may be adequately dealt with. As the representative of an industrial area, where we have a large number of people liable to the means test, I look upon that as a most important pronouncement. In the past there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding on this subject. On the one hand, the unemployed have been told that this particular phase was not within the competency of public assistance committees, and they have heard at Question Time, and in the course of our Debates, that it was not a matter with which the Minister could deal. But the Minister can do a good deal by giving guidance to public assistance committees without necessarily giving them instructions, and I know that a great deal of guidance has been given to those public assistance committees which are desirous of receiving it. If the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour will continue the good work of alleviating the undoubted hardship which any test over a large number of people must involve, I am sure that they will merit and receive, both in this House and in the country, a large measure of gratitude, well pressed down and flowing over.

Mr. COVE: This Parliament has been remarkable for the large number of maiden speeches that have been delivered, but in my experience very few
of them by the younger Members of the House have been characterised by modesty. If I may say so, the speech to which we have just listened has not been characterised by much modesty. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member opposite will listen for a moment he will know something about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Modesty!"] Another thing that has characterised the speeches of younger Members of this House has been their reactionary nature. This Parliament is undoubtedly a die-hard Parliament, a Parliament from which we can expect very little sympathy. The younger Members at least have not the same deep and abiding sympathy with those who have been so unfortunate in life as to be thrown out of employment. The hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) has a remedy—a remedy which we have heard from younger Members opposite more than once in this Parliament, and it is, that if we are to cure unemployment, to relieve these people from the dire necessity of a means test, then the thing we have to do is to relieve taxation; it is taxation that is burdening industry, breaking its back, causing rampant unemployment throughout the country and the terrible poverty which now exists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] I hear an hon. Member saying "Hear, hear." Without committing myself to that proposition, I will accept it for the purpose of argument, and ask the hon. Member opposite whether he is really prepared to put that policy into effect. If taxation is a burden upon industry, then I invite the hon. Member to come with us and relieve industry of the terrible burden of taxation.

Mr. SIMMONDS rose—

Mr. COVE: The hon. Member will have his chance in a moment. If taxation is breaking down industry, then I invite hon. Members opposite to come with us and relieve industry of that burden. What is the burden? At least two-thirds of the burden of taxation upon industry is the burden of War Loan and War Debt. If there is any sincerity, any reality whatever in the claim that taxation is a burden upon industry, then I suggest that our efforts would be far more fruitful if we reduced the taxation due to War Debt rather than reduce
the miserable amount that is paid to the unemployed.

Mr. SIMMONDS rose—

Mr. COVE: I want to finish this part of my argument if the hon. Member will allow me.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member is getting far away from the subject. It is all very well to suggest that it should be done by a reduction of taxation, but when it comes to going into the specific question as to what taxation should be reduced then the hon. Member is getting away from the subject.

Mr. COVE: It has been mentioned over and over again that we should reduce taxation. The method of reducing taxation in this Bill is by reducing unemployment pay, and I hope it is relevant to suggest that if we are going to get a reduction of taxation by reducing the payment to the unemployed it is also relevant to suggest that there should be a reduction of the huge burden of War Debt which now hangs heavily upon industry in this country. I do not want to pursue it any further. I should welcome a wider discussion on this issue, because it is plain that no effective reduction of taxation can take place unless the War Debt is tackled.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. COVE: I do not intend to pursue that, except to say that we on this side totally deny the proposition that taxation is a burden upon industry. I take my stand on the Colwyn Committee Report, and on the statement of Dr. Coates, both of whom have emphatically declared, after the most minute examination, that, after all, you do not pay taxes until you have made profits, and that in itself, disposes of the suggestion that taxation is a burden upon industry. Let me come to the Bill. This is a very small Bill, but to me it raises tremendous difficulties and is full of human import. Small as it is, it is one of the most significant Bills that has been or can be introduced into this House. Why de I say that? First of all, I say it because the Clause which we are now discussing embodies clearly and distinctly the breakdown of the capitalist system to provide a decent standard of life for millions of our fellowmen. It shows that the capitalist system under which we are
living cannot provide 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 people with a decent standard of life. It also shows that the Government are being driven in defence of an inequitable industrial system to impose upon our people unjust hardships and miseries.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary two questions. In the first place, what is the ethical justification for this Clause? What is the moral justification for it? The only ethical justification is that a man must not get something for nothing. What does that postulate? It postulates that a working man sits down and works his brains, and says "How can I get something for nothing?" It postulates on the part of the working man a desire to exploit other people, to get something for himself for which he has given no return to society. Is that a true picture of the unemployed man? Where is the unemployed man who sits down in that frame of mind? Where is the unemployed man who folds his arms and sits down and says, "I am going to get something for nothing, I am going to get something out of the State for nothing. I am not going to give any work, to render any service to society"? Where is the working man who deliberately says, "I will not give anything to society. I am going to get everything out of society"; something for nothing If ever there was a caricature of the British working man it is embodied in that statement. The working man does not say, "I am going to get something for nothing because I am unemployed." There is not an unemployed man within the knowledge of hon. Members who takes that attitude. The only justification I have heard is that we must stop people getting something for nothing. If ever there was a wrong, a wicked, diagnosis of the economic situation and the moral forces which determines men's actions, it is there.
The unemployed man, in the first place, is a victim of society. He is unemployed through no fault of his own. He is unemployed because of the very necessity for progress in industry. If you absorb every unemployed man it means that you have a static society, no progress in industry, no technical development, no reorganisation. To put it in another way, the unemployed man is the price of technical and industrial progress. He is a symbol of it; he is the product of it. Under the capitalist system of society
you have now come to the point where statistics prove that you cannot have progress without having the unemployed man. Rationalisation means increased unemployment. Every new invention means increased unemployment, and, therefore, the unemployed man is the victim of the industrial system under which he lives. Unless you wish to be inhuman and to act in a class-conscious manner, so as to protect class privilege, you have no right to apply not only a means test, but a test which provides no decent standard of life. Something for nothing—

The CHAIRMAN: I have tried very hard to see how the hon. Member relates this subject to the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. He is now bringing up a matter that is definitely outside the Order under which the means test is carried out.

Mr. COVE: I thought there was to be a very wide discussion.

The CHAIRMAN: As wide as can be allowed, but the hon. Member cannot be allowed to open a general discussion on the state of society.

Mr. COVE: In my opinion, the means test does raise the question of the state of society in a very acute form. But I bow to your Ruling. I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary to justify the means test on ethical or on economic grounds. Why should there be a means test? Is there any reason at all for it in the state of industrial society? I say no. In the Macmillan report I raw figures which showed that the productive power of society had gone up 25 per cent. and the population had gone up only 5 per cent. Society can produce more than it can consume. Since that is so there is no justification at all in the economics of society for this Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: This is the last time that I can ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. COVE: I am sorry. I was under a misapprehension. I really thought that we were to discuss the matter in a very wide way. I have here the minutes of evidence of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, Part III. It is the report of a special investigation in industrial areas into the subsequent
history of persons with disallowed claims to unemployment benefit. I would direct attention to what the report says with regard to unemployed men being a burden on their families. It means the break-up of the family home. There is no justification for that on ethical or on economic grounds. The Government have no right to throw the burden of maintaining these people on to the family, until society itself has established a family income. We have not a family wage at present; we have only an individual wage for individual effort, made by particular persons in a particular occupation backed up by the strength of their trade union. The report, after dealing with help by families and so on, and after showing the bright side of the picture, continues:
There is, however, a darker side to this picture of the mutual help rendered by members of a family group to one another. All the reports bring out the fact that the burden of maintaining the disallowed persons was in greater or less degree usually a case hardship to others.
That is not the statement of a Socialist speaker. The report goes on:
Often the subsidy had to come out of the earnings of a casual worker or out of the benefit drawn by some other wage-earner in the home. In this way the burden was not removed; it was only spread.
We shall oppose this Clause. We shall oppose the whole principle of a means test. I am glad that the party to which I belong has now declared its complete opposition to a means test.

Mr. HUDSON: Do I understand that the hon. Member is going to vote against this Clause.

Mr. COVE: Yes. [Laughter.] I mean no. [Laughter.] There is nothing in that. It is all right.

Mr. HUDSON: How is the hon. Member going to square his ethical objection with his conscience?

Mr. COVE: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that it is not within our power to improve this Clause. That power rests with the Government. He knows that we are bound to accept this Clause to-night, but as far as a declaration of policy is concerned—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been completely out of order in a
great part of what he has been saying. The Clause only authorises a continuance of this particular legislation in this particular form, in other words to continue these payments, subject to a means test. The hon. Member cannot discuss an alteration of the means test.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question. It was a question which I put last Friday, and I should like an answer. It referred to the casual labourer. I pointed out that if a man does an occasional day's work, by the regulations as they exist now a sixth of the total determination of the family must be deducted. That is a discouragement to a man. The suggestion I put on Friday was that, should a man be offered an odd day's work, the deduction of the sixth of the determination should be levied on the man's part of the determination and not on that of the whole family.

Mr. M. W. BEAUMONT: I rise to appeal to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). The hon. Member started by reproving my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) for lack of modesty, and then told him that if he listened he would learn something. We are still waiting. I confess that I am in some doubt as to what really are the hon. Member's views on this Clause, because after a fulmination of some 20 minutes he, in the space of half a minute, said, first, that he would vote against the Clause, and then that he would not. His contribution to the Debate can, therefore, have been hardly as valuable as he anticipated that it would be. I do not want to go at length into the complicated question of the means test. That has been thoroughly discussed from all angles. Whatever may be the rights and wrongs of the matter, it is a question on which the last election largely turned. The people of this country gave their decision in no uncertain voice, and if the Government to-day did anything to weaken the policy that was then put forward they would be betraying the trust which they inherited at the election.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I am glad that we are having another opportunity of protesting against the means test. We are not opposing the payment of the £20,000,000 to carry on the transitional benefit. Our one fear is that when we get to 1933 the
Government may think of stopping transitional payments altogether. Our second fear is that the means test will continue up to 1933. Whenever we get the opportunity of protesting against the means test we shall make that protest. My regret is that in the Committee stage of the Bill it is not possible for us to move an Amendment that would raise the question of the means test. If we could do so on such an Amendment we would divide the House. As men have gone off transitional benefit they have gone on to the Poor Law. The Parliamentary Secretary interrupted an hon. Friend who made that statement by saying "Give us the figures; prove the statement." I will give him the latest figures for Durham County. In the Durham administrative area the authorities have saved on the means test £2,470 per week, but the public assistance committees report that they are paying in relief, owing to the discontinuance of unemployment benefit, no less than £1,710 per week.
The Parliamentary Secretary last Friday made a statement that rather amazed me. It. seemed difficult to understand at the time, and, reading it again, it seems more difficult to understand. He was dealing with those who, receiving transitional benefit, had a certain amount of funds at their disposal and said:
In these circumstances, it is not fair to the honest man that the dishonest person should be placed in a position to get away with it through lack of inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1932; col. 448, Vol. 264.]
Did he mean that? Did he mean that all those who had drawn transitional benefit and who were not really poverty-stricken were dishonest? I will give a case from my own division, about which I received to-day a reply from the Ministry of Labour. This man says:
I am a miner. My wife happens to have money.…
He has been fortunate enough, more fortunate than most of us, to marry a wife with money.
The interest on what she has is £62 a year, and we have the house we live in. She does not save anything. Is it fair that she has to keep me? I married her to keep her. She was British enough to put her money in British stock, so tell them to play the man and be British.
The £62 is made up of £60 interest on War Stock and £2 bank interest. Does
the Parliamentary Secretary say that that man, who has had his transitional benefit stopped because his wife has £62 a year, was dishonest so long as he was drawing transitional benefit? We, who come from distressed areas where thousands are drawing transitional benefit, resent the Parliamentary Secretary describing these people as dishonest. Does he mean that they are dishonest because they are drawing State benefits? If he does, it applies to far more than these people.
One would like the Parliamentary Secretary to take a leaf out of the book of his chief, because he has given the impression since he became Parliamentary Secretary that he delights in such things as the means test and the stopping of unemployment benefit, and that he takes a thorough delight in them. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] Yes, he does. That is the impression he has given me. I have seen Ministers dealing at that Box with the Unemployment Fund and with benefit for the last 10 years. He has certainly given me the impression that he is the most heartless and the most stony-hearted Minister who has dealt with unemployment in the last 10 years.
I want now to deal with the statement made by the Minister of Health last Friday. I raised the question as to the promise of the Prime Minister, when addressing his constituency in Durham, to have the means test reconsidered. I said then that one newspaper, in reporting the Prime Minister's speech, put the following heading in black type at the head of the report:
Premier Promises to Revise the Means Test.
I did not say he promised to revise it but he promised to have it reconsidered. This is the report of his speech:
In a reference to the means test he (the Prime Minister) said that every honest and decent workman knew that the whole question had got to be reconsidered. If a better means could be found, the Government was not opposed to doing it.
What the Prime Minister promised was that the means test 'would be reconsidered, but the Minister of Health, speaking last Friday, made this statement:
The Prime Minister, if I remember rightly, said—and it is the interpretation.
also of the hon. Member—that if in the course of administration any notorious hardships were discovered, it must be the immediate business of the Administration to consider possible alternative methods by which they could be removed."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1932; col. 515, Vol. 264.]
That is altogether a different thing from what the Prime Minister promised. The Prime Minister did not say in his speech anything like what the Minister of Health wanted to make out that he said. The Prime Minister gave a definite promise to that meeting in County Durham that the Government would be prepared to reconsider the means test and that, if a better way could be found, the Government would be prepared to adopt it. Have the Ministry of Labour or the Government reconsidered the means test? Have they taken any steps to deal with the principle of the means test which was what the Prime Minister had in mind? Instead of the House being told that the Government had reconsidered the principle of the means test, we were simply told by the Minister of Labour that the Government are in favour of the means test continuing as it is at present till June, 1933. It is not fair for the Prime Minister, who is the head of the Government, to make a statement at a public meeting that they would be prepared to consider the means test and then to do nothing, and far those in charge of the Ministry of Labour to ignore that statement and to go on carrying out the means test on the same lines until June, 1933.
The Minister of Labour seemed thoroughly optimistic that all the Ministry had to do was to wait until the Royal Commission's report was in hand, and then they would be able to consider action with regard to the means test and to unemployment. The Minister is optimistic if he thinks it is possible to receive any help from the Royal Commission's report. My experience of Royal Commissions is that they are set up, they take evidence, and they produce a report, on which generally no action is taken. Royal Commissions are generally set up in order to shelve a difficult question. When, sitting on the other side of the House, I voted for the setting up of this Royal Commission, my intention was simply to shelve a difficult question. My impression was that we were simply succeeding in
shelving a difficult question and that the best thing to do was to send it to a Royal Commission and that would be the last we would hear of it. Of course, it is the regular thing the Prime Minister did. In spite of the optimism of the Minister of Labour, I still believe the Royal Commission will not be much help in dealing with this question.
The Minister has spoken from time to time about periodic alteration of the law dealing with unemployment. Since I came into this House in 1922 we have averaged far more than one Bill a year on the subject. If the law relating to unemployment insurance is in a chaotic condition, it is because so many Bills have been passed through this House, and because it is so difficult a problem that since 1921 no Government has been able to bring in a Bill which would clear up the law and make it simple. The Minister also said that the party opposite was in favour of the insurance principle and of getting the fund back on an insurance basis. He was far too optimistic when he said that. It is not possible with this fund as it is and with so many men unemployed—

The CHAIRMAN: This Clause does not deal at all with that point.

Mr. BATEY: It does not, and, therefore, I claim that the Minister of Labour was wrong when he referred to it, but he was allowed to do it. I agree that I am out of order, and I shall not go any further. We are informed that a conference of public assistance committees has been arranged in the north of England, to cover the counties of Durham and Northumberland and to deal with the questions of the means test and transitional payments in that area. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health what it is proposed to do if that conference fails? The object of the conference is well known. The Government are dissatisfied that so much money is required for transitional payments in the north of England. They think that more people ought to be prevented from drawing transitional payment. They ought to keep in mind that already the inspector has been going round the committees in the county of Durham and saying "You have to deal with these transitional payments on a Poor Law basis and if you do not we will supplant you."

The CHAIRMAN: I must warn the hon. Member that I cannot allow this matter to be gone into on the question which is now before the Committee.

Mr. BATEY: We are dealing with transitional payments and the proposal in the Bill is that these payments should continue until June, 1933. The only object of the conference to which I refer is to deal with transitional payments.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that it is to deal with the administration of something which is already the law. At present we are merely discussing whether that law should continue or not for a certain period. We cannot now discuss the administration of the means test.

Mr. LAWSON: On a point of Order. We are in practice discussing transitional payments, and, on every occasion when this question has been before us, it has been found necessary for the Minister of Health to give answers and explanations upon these points because of the joint administration by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour which is involved in this matter. Is it not, therefore, permissible to put questions directly relating to the work of the other Department concerned?

The CHAIRMAN: Not on the question that this Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. BATEY: If I am ruled out of order I shall not continue, but the Minister of Health dealt definitely with this subject last Friday.

The CHAIRMAN: The Debate on Friday was not on this question. I must ask the hon. Member to accept my Ruling.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not wish to question your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but this Clause is really the Bill, and in discussing the Clause we are discussing, in effect, what we discussed on Friday. I suggest, respectfully that we are entitled to argue on the administration of the means test, that the Government ought to provide more money here instead of pushing people on to the public assistance authorities and the local rates.

The CHAIRMAN: I must adhere to my Ruling that what the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) was saying in
regard to this conference, is not in order on the question at the present before the Committee.

Mr. BATEY: I will not carry it any further. I content myself with again protesting against the means test, and expressing my satisfaction that this party, small as it is, will have an opportunity of making that protest. I do not know if I am in order in referring to the question of who originated the means test. The statement has been going round the country that the Minister of Health in the last Labour Government was the originator of the test. I consider that is a most unfair statement. [Interruption.] I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that he is absolutely wrong in seeking to lay the blame there. As one who has been keenly interested in this Unemployment Fund over a long period, and who has followed closely the progress of every Bill concerning it for the last 10 years, I wish to say that that statement is one of the most unfair things that I know of. For anyone to attempt to say that the late Minister of Health was the originator of the means test—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Anomalies Act."] That is another thing—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that any of these matters are dealt with in this Clause.

Mr. BATEY: I only want to protest against the attempt to saddle the late Minister of Health with this responsibility. The late Minister of Health did one of the finest things that a man ever did in connection with this question, in January, 1930, long before there was any idea of sending the unemployed before the public assistance committees, when he issued a circular urging that men receiving disability pensions should be treated as kindly as possible when before the public assistance committees. [HON. MEMBERS: "For Poor Law purposes!"] Yes, for Poor Law purposes alone, but he is in no way responsible for the means test. The people responsible for the means test are the National Government.

The CHAIRMAN: I must again ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the question before the Committee, which is whether this Clause should stand part of the Bill or not.

Mr. BATEY: It seems most difficult to do so because, if I understood anything, I understood that the Clause raised the question of the means test and I am discussing nothing else but the means test. However, I have said all that I wanted to say. I hope that this party will take every opportunity of protesting against the means test and will not hesitate to divide against it on every opportunity.

Mr. HUDSON: This Debate has wandered rather far from the question that this Clause should stand part of the Bill, but if the Committee will allow me I will try briefly to answer one or two of the more important points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) took me to task for something which I said on Friday. If he will carefully refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that when I made the remarks to which he has called attention, I was dealing with the necessity for inquiring into means in these cases, and I said quite frankly that there was a duty to make inquiry in these cases, and it was only in that respect that I said that it was not fair to the honest man that the dishonest man should be able to get away with it for want of inquiry. I said that in the majority of cases the statement of applicants could be accepted, but that there was a minority of cases in which inquiry was necessary, and I would only remind hon. Gentlemen opposite of one case which is familiar to many of us in which 14 applicants stated that their collective earnings were only £15 odd and it was found on investigation that those earnings were over £40. That is the type of thing to which I referred.
The hon. Member went on to refer to the increased cost of the Poor Law in Durham and he alleged that this was due to the operation of the means test. But it is perfectly obvious that no increase of expenditure can fall on the local authorities as a result of the means test. It is up to the local public assistance committee to decide whether a man shall receive transitional payments, up to the maximum of the benefit scale, and if the public assistance committee decide that the man is not in need of such payments the public assistance authority acting as the Poor Law authority will
not give him any relief. It is therefore impossible, as I have explained on several occasions, for any extra charge to fall on the local authority as a, result of the means test.

Mr. BATEY: Then, how does the hon. Gentleman explain this return which has just been sent out by the chief officer of the public assistance committee in Durham for the last Saturday in March, in which he gives these figures?

Mr. HUDSON: Whatever may be the cause of the increase in the charge in Durham it is not the means test. There are many possible causes. Men may have been disallowed under the Anomalies Act. There are half a dozen different possible causes, but the means test, by itself, is certainly not the cause, and I venture to assert that the chief public assistance officer in Durham and the chief clerk of the Durham County Council would agree with me. May I deal in passing with the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears). I am afraid that I have not had time to go into the matter fully, but as I understand the position the law lays down that a man who is employed on one day during one week is not entitled to receive benefit in respect of that day. The matter is one which legislation would be needed to cure, but I will go into it carefully and let the hon. and gallant Member know about it.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) said he thought it was very bad luck that the good man, the man who had been in steady employment all his life should suffer because of the undue optimism of the Blanesburgh Committee. I would remind the hon. Member that before 1927 when the Blanesburgh Committee's recommendations were passed, substantially, into law, there was a definite limit on the number of weeks for which a man could draw benefit. A man who was unemployed between 1911 and 1920, would only have been able to draw 15 weeks' benefit in any one year irrespective of the number of weeks contributions he had paid. From 1920 to 1927 he would only have been able to draw 26 weeks' benefit, in any one year, however many stamps he might have had before that year. Therefore, he has only really been put back to-day in the position in which he was before.
The hon. Member went on to say that it was very hard that a man who had been in insurance since 1911 and had paid at least £50 in contributions should now have to come and ask for transitional payments. I would point out to him that such a case is impossible under the present Bill. We are discussing here the extension of transitional payments to persons who cannot show 30 stamps in the course of the last two years. There are 52 weeks in a year and 104 in two years, and a man may have drawn about £70 in the course of the last two years before he falls under the provisions of this Bill at all.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I may have been wrong in not dividing those two, but a man may have paid from 1912 up to 1929 and now come on to transitional benefit.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: He might come on to transitional payments after 26 weeks, but certainly not because of the provisions that we are discussing in this Clause. I will go further and say that the real reason why that man has to be treated so hardly is because of the extravagance of hon. Members opposite. If it were not for the fact that they have, by their actions, both generally and in respect of this particular matter, caused the fund to run into debt to the tune of millions of pounds, we should not have required these provisions. The hon. Member asked what has happened to the 200,000 persons who have been refused transitional payments, and he suggested that many of them—in fact I gather that he suggested that all of them, or nearly all—

Mr. GRENFELL: Some of them.

Mr. HUDSON: —had gone on to the Poor Law. He pointed out that there was a peculiar coincidenece in the 200,000 who had been denied transitional payments and the 200,000 who, he said, had been thrown on the Poor Law for the last six months. My answer to that is the same as that which I made to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) the other day. In the first place, the two figures are not comparable, because the number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief, namely, 200,000, include the whole of the members of a family, and if you want to compare them at all fairly with the numbers of persons who
have been refused benefit, you ought to divide the figure by four; in other words, there are only about 50,000 heads of households who have come on to the Poor Law, as compared with 200,000 who have been refused benefit. Again I say that it is obvious that no public assistance authority or committee would refuse a man transitional payment one day and allow him the next day to come along and claim relief under the Poor Law. Therefore, there is no connection whatever between the two cases.

Mr. GRENFELL: If the hon. Member will read my speech in the morning, he will find that I referred to dependants.

Mr. HUDSON: It is impossible to compare the two cases, and—

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. We are discussing something which I understood you, Sir Dennis, to rule out of order just now. One of my hon. Friends wants to reply, and if the Parliamentary Secretary is in order, we want to be allowed to reply.

The CHAIRMAN: I think there is a great deal of difference. As I understand it, the question at the moment is as to the effect of the means test, not the way in which it was administered.

Mr. LANSBURY: On that point, we do not ask you to stop the hon. Member, but we do want to be able to reply to his arguments.

The CHAIRMAN: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot give these Rulings in advance as to what is or is not in order.

Mr. LANSBURY: That is all very well, but our people have been stopped from arguing in the same way.

Mr. HUDSON: I do not want to pursue the question any further. I am merely trying to give an answer to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Gower, and I have dealt with that point. It is clear that the two figures have nothing to do with each other, and that one is not affected by the other. The hon. Member asked what the Government are going to tell the conference of local authorities, but you, Sir Dennis, would not allow the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) to pursue that
subject, and therefore I think I had better leave it.
The hon. Member went on to refer to the question of compensation cases. As he knows, I have every sympathy with the cases put forward. I think a great number of these cases are those of men deserving of the fullest sympathy, in view of the fact that, as the result of their injuries, although they do not get 100 per cent. compensation, nevertheless, owing to the circumstances of the district and their injuries, they stand very little chance of getting a job again. That is precisely the kind of question on which we asked the Royal Commission to give us their assistance and advice, because they are definitely the kind of persons who fall outside the insurance scheme, as a result of the injuries they have received. Contrary to the belief of the hon. Member for Spennymoor, when we get the report of the Royal Commission we intend, not necessarily to act in accordance with it, but to consider it and to bring forward comprehensive legislation. I think I have now covered most of the important points that have been raised in the Debate, and I trust that we may now be allowed to get the Clause.

Mr. McENTEE: In spite of what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary, I assert that the Poor Law relief figures are going up as a definite consequence of the means test. The hon. Gentleman said that it was impossible that it should be so, but it is a very extraordinary thing that those figures are going up side by side with the administration of the means test. I want to put forward some cases that have come under my personal notice in the actual administration of the means test by members of the same public assistance committees, sitting at different times and in different places. These committees are taking entirely different views as to what their duties are to the people who are seeking relief, and it is well known that in one area a man will be turned down, while in another area within a quarter of a mile members of the same public assistance committee will allow an exactly similar case to receive benefit.
I could give scores of instances, personal instances that have come under my own observation, or that have come to see me with regard to the treatment they
have received. They are turned down, and many of them interview a member of the guardians, or myself, or some other hon. Member, or somebody else who they think has an influence with the public assistance committee, and after inquiring into their cases, members of the same committee, sitting as a full committee, will grant them Poor Law relief when they have already been turned down in regard to transitional payment. I can give scores of such cases in the area with which I am most familiar, and I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is one direct cause for the increase in the poverty as it shows itself in the area a part of which I represent in this House. After all, I keep my eyes open, and I am familiar with what occurs in my district, which is also the district in which I happen to live, and I know its people. They come to me with their troubles, and I hear of scores of cases such as those that I have mentioned.
When I go to the public and semi-public committees and charitable organisations in the town, I see the same thing taking place there. The numbers of children who are being fed in our schools in Walthamstow have more than doubled during the last year, and everybody in the town who has anything to do with the administration of local affairs attributes it, and rightly, I think, in spite of what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary, to the administration of the means test. I have figures in my hand dealing with the latest possible three weeks, showing the amount of outdoor relief that has been paid, as compared with the same three weeks last year, and I find that the increase is approximately 16 per cent. The figures, in numbers, are for 1931, 5,067—they are official figures, and there is no question about their accuracy—whereas in 1932 for the same period they were 5,742. In actual money and poor relief in kind, the amount in 1931 was £3,360 and in 1932 £3,880, a difference of £520, or approximately 16 per cent. increase.
In the case of the children who are being fed on the recommendation of the head teachers in the schools in the same area, they have more than doubled, and the amount of milk that is being distributed to mothers and children under the Order of the Minister of Health has had to be increased very considerably. I should have been interested to hear, as the hon. Gentleman said that the
means test is not the reason, what in his view is the reason for these increases which we find all over the country. They have occurred in every area where the means test is being administered to any extent, but they do not show in those districts where the means test has not been administered to anything Iike the same extent. If there are causes other than the one that we are suggesting, and if the hon. Gentleman knows what they are, why does he not tell us what they are? If he does not know them, perhaps it is as well to go off on a sideline, as he did, by simply denying the accuracy of our statements and giving no proof at all except his assertion. I am not prepared to accept his assertion, in view of the figures and the facts that I have quoted, which could be multiplied all over the country, in every area where the means test has been administered. You can go to other areas where there are practically no unemployed, and consequently where there is no means test, and you cannot quote any figures side by side with those figures to show that there is any variation in the general rule operating there, but where the means test does operate, you get these varying figures.
As to the people who have been struck off transitional payment, I have noticed in my area that the older people are suffering most. I get them in scores, from 60 years up particularly, coming to me and saying, "What on earth are we to do?" They have reached an age where it is almost impossible to get a job, in view of the conditions now existing, conditions for which the National Government are largely responsible, and they are asking what they are to do. They say, "We go to the public assistance committee, because we are ordered to go there by the Employment Exchange, to have our case considered, and there we get no consideration at all, or practically none. We are not allowed to bring anyone to state our case, and we are without experience of such things." You have to draw all this out of these people, who are generally uneducated men who have worked at casual labour all their life, and they are quite unable to state a case for themselves when they go before a committee. As a consequence, they are turned down without any adequate consideration. They go from the committee and apply
to a relieving officer, who generally takes a deeper and more personal interest in their cases than any committee before whom they have gone, and which, after all, has not the time to consider in detail the position of these people. When the relieving officer goes into their cases more deeply than they have been gone into by a public assistance committee, he sends them back, and they get relief from the public assistance committee and the guardians. That is the reason the figures have run up. The Parliamentary Secretary knows it perfectly well. If he does not, he is not familiar with what is happening all over the country as are some of us who are more intimately associated with these people and know them. We have been associated with them all our lives. I am very proud to have been associated with them, because, after all, they are the men and women who produce all that is produced in life; yet they are getting such scant consideration from the people whom they feed, clothe, and house.
I am asking that the means test should be administered in a more reasonable spirit, that greater consideration should be given to the men and women who are seeking to have transitional payments, and that they should not be turned off, as they are being turned off, in great numbers without any reasonable consideration being given to their cases. When fuller consideration is given, generally on the recommendation of the relieving officer who knows more of their circumstances, they get poor relief after they have been denied transitional payments. The ratepayers will be driven to give consideration to the administration of the means test, because, as a consequence of its administration, people are being driven on to the local rates and are receiving Poor Law relief; they are also receiving milk through the public health department with the sanction of the Minister of Health, and children are having meals in the schools with the sanction of the President of the Board of Education. People are also getting help from charitable organisations because those organisations know the conditions under which they live and have greater sympathy with them than the National Government apparently have. It will be impossible for any of us to vote against this Bill because we do not want to inflict greater hardship than is inflicted, but it
does not follow because we are not going to vote against it that we do not see the hardship and that we are not doing right in making our protest.

Mr. BRIANT: The question raised by the hon. Member is so important that the Minister should get returns from the local authorities of the number of persons who have been refused transitional payments and who ultimately apply for Poor Law relief. I cannot understand the contention that these people go on to Poor Law relief. The public assistance committee is the body that recommends whether they shall get transitional payments, and, in doing that, they take into consideration the whole of the facts. It seems inconceivable that public assistance committees should relieve the State of the burden of transitional payments and add a burden to their local rates by forcing these people on to Poor Law relief. If my hon. Friends are right, we should know the facts. My hon. Friends opposite are not quite right in saying that the average man is perplexed by having to go before a committee. In London not one case in 20 goes before a committee. The cases are settled on returns made by the applicant.

Mr. HICKS: What about appeals?

Mr. BRIANT: The number of appeals is very few in London. It is not my experience that cases receive scant consideration. In London 40 per cent. of the cases have already applied for poor relief. Their circumstances are known, and it would be a real grievance if the applicants were compelled to go before another body. In London 40 per cent. of the cases have been in contact with the Poor Law before, so that the facts are known to the authorities. It would be a grievance if they had to go to another body who would have to start from the very beginning to get facts which had already been elicited. The arguments of hon. Members opposite are not sound on one or two points, but their point in regard to the number of persons transferred from transitional payments to ordinary Poor Law relief is of sufficient importance to be cleared up. A return should be obtained from every public assistance committee of the numbers of people who have been refused transitional payments or whose payments
have been reduced, and the number of such persons who obtain Poor Law relief.

Clause 2 (Short title and extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

CHANCEL REPAIRS BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Abolition of jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts to enforce repair of chancels) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Future proceedings to enforce liability to repair chancels.)

Dr. PETERS: I beg to move in page 1, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
and calling on him to put the chancel in proper repair.
I apologise to the Committee for having handed in some manuscript Amendments at the last moment, but since the Second Reading was very hurried and late on Friday, there was no time to deal with the matter before. As the Bill is drawn, a notice is to be served on any person who appears to be liable to repair the chancel, and this notice will state in general terms, according to the Bill, the allegation and the state of disrepair, but there is no actual demand made that this individual shall put the chancel into repair. There are provisions in the Bill giving the Rules Committee power to make the necessary rules, and I am suggesting the addition of these words so that no trouble will arise by reason of any judge or any other person raising any technicalities in any proceedings.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): In accepting this Amendment, I should like to say to the hon. Member that he need not apologise for not having given longer notice of his Amendments. On the contrary, I am very much obliged to him for having put his professional experience in the court in which this Bill will be administered at the disposal of the Government. He has suggested some very useful Amend-
ments, of which this is one, and I propose to ask the Committee to accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(General provisions as to proceedings under Act.)

Dr. PETERS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, at the end, to add the words:
and rules under that Section may prescribe the form of notice to repair and the manner in which it may be served.
I might point out in reference to the following Clause, that I shall ask the Committee to delete it from the Bill. I understand that that is agreeable to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. I will not go into the details of the powers under Section 164 of the County Courts Act, 1888, but it is essential that a certain express provision should be given in this Bill so that the rules may prescribe the actual form of the notice and the manner in which it is served.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Rules for purposes of Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Dr. PETERS: In consequence of the previous Amendment, this Clause is no longer necessary.

Question put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 5.—(Interpretation.)

Dr. PETERS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, to leave out from the word "benefice" to the end of line 38.
These words are entirely meaningless so far as the Bill stands. On the following page is a definition of "responsible authority," and it is clear that these words are unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

8.0 p.m.

Further Amendment made: in page 3, line 39, leave out the words "rules made under this Act" and insert instead thereof the words "County Court rules."—[Dr. Peters.]

Clause 6 (Short title, application, and commencement) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS [MONEY] (No. 2).

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further and better provision for the protection and welfare of the young and the treatment of young offenders, to amend the Children Act, 1908, and other enactments relating to the young, and for objects connected with the purposes aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums on such conditions as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may recommend towards any expenses of a council of a county or of a county borough, or a large burgh in Scotland, in respect of remand homes.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the township of Denton, in the rural district of Wharfedale, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 1st day of March, 1932, be approved."—[Mr. Pybus.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Eight o'Clock.